What is the current definition of secular?
It seems to be used more and more as a polarizing term by extremists at both ends. I was shocked to find an advertisement for a very religious political candidate when I searched the Online Etymology Dictionary site, making me suspicious of their definition's accuracy. So, what's the common understanding of the term?

The word has two meanings that are related, but appear opposites. It literally means "of the world", from the ecclesiastical Latin saecularis.

The most common meaning today is "of the world, as opposed to religion". However, the RC church uses the word to refer to (gerally ordained) members of the Church who "go out into the world", like parish priests, missionaries, and so on. Non-secular members are those like monks and nuns, hermits, etc.

The Right's def of "secular" appears to be those opposed to organized religion.

It's "of the world, as opposed to religion", not "of the world, opposed to religion".

That's the official def. It's not the Right's.

I've only heard the non-religious definition.

I expect "secular" is a hot word on the religious right (maybe not so much on the left?) because of the evolving philosophy of "secularism" (word coined in 1851).

Although in America, secularism is usually taken to be a neutral expression of the separation between church and state, it takes a different shade of politics in a traditionally Catholic European country, or in a nation where Islam is the predominant (or even the state) religion.

I gather that the evangelical right in the US fears that banning prayer in school (for example) puts us on a slippery slope to 'godless' European nations. Whereas the traditionally Catholic countries seem still engaged in modernizing, shedding overly religious trappings that we never really had here.

I just can't understand why any religion would expect others to follow what they believe. If they want to say a prayer in school, fine. But don't force others to. The same goes for abortion or gay marriage or birth control. Particularly when our country has the separation of church and state, it just doesn't make sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I just can't understand why any religion would expect others to follow what they believe. If they want to say a prayer in school, fine. But don't force others to. The same goes for abortion or gay marriage or birth control. Particularly when our country has the separation of church and state, it just doesn't make sense.

Whereas I agree with you it is a sad fact that religious zealots from many religions do not. I don't know about Judaism, but certainly the other two monotheistic religions have slaughtered millons in the name of their beliefs And, even today, there is much overt and covert pressure on people to "convert". For example, many religions will not allow their followers to marry the followers of another religion.

So far as I can establish, just about the only people who never apply pressure on others to "convert" are atheists. Mind you, when I told the mother of my future wife that I was an atheist she made it quite clear that she wouldn't have her daughter going out with an atheist. So I confess that I lied to her and said that I was joking, and that I was actually a Christian. Well, I was baptised as one so it wasn't a complete lie. I was a Christian and went to Sunday School for a few years until grew old enough to realise what a load of old rubbish I was being fed; by the time I was at secondary school I took no part in any religious ceremonies at all - and have never done so since.

Incidentally, although the UK does not have any consitutional separation of church and state as does the USA, the UK (and especially England) is probably one of the least religious countries in the world. Although we have thousands of wonderful churches (my little village has four) very few people ever go to them except to get married or buried.

Actually there does seem to be a modern trend towards aggressive atheism. It doesn't take the form of people going door to door with copies of a Richard Dawkins book trying to convert people but it does take the form of telling people that they are fools for believing and that no rational or sane person could ever believe in a god because there can, almost by definition, be no proof of the existance of a god. (After all if there was proof then it wouldn't be faith would it?)

Me, I'm a live and let live kind of atheist. You want to believe? Fine, go ahead. We'll only come to blows if you try to make me believe.

I do think however that atheists have become the last persecuted religious group. People go out of their way to name check and praise every religion up to (or maybe down to) and including the real fringe stuff like Jedi, but atheists are often portrayed as being half a step away from whatever your own religion's equivalent of Satanist is.

Remember these quotes from Tony Blair addressing Barack Obama's First National Prayer Breakfast?

quote:

Today, religion is under attack from without and from within. From within, it is corroded by extremists who use their faith as a means of excluding the other...

From without, religious faith is assailed by an increasingly aggressive secularism, which derides faith as contrary to reason and defines faith by conflict. Thus do the extreme believers and the aggressive non-believers come together in unholy alliance.

Nice to be thought of in the same company as terrorists.

quote:

Neither do I decry the work of humanists, who give gladly of themselves for others and who can often shame the avowedly religious. Those who do God’s work are God’s people.

Gee thanks. Big of you. I can do God's work even without being a believer. Can I do good work if I don't want to be one of "God's people"?

quote:

The 21st Century will be poorer in spirit, meaner in ambition, less disciplined in conscience, if it is not under the guardianship of faith in God

Really. So does that apply to me as well? Will I personally be less disciplined in conscience, poorer in spirit and meaner in ambition?

I remember feeling chilled when I read the transcript (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/8558) by the way that he bends over backwards to namecheck every religion in the world but specifically excludes atheists from just about everything except that we might accidentally do God's work or that we might be considered some kind of spiritual terrorist.

As I said personally I'm not an aggressive atheist. I really don't care what other people believe. I can see why, faced with this last bastion of religious bigotry, atheists might fight back though.

quote:

Incidentally, although the UK does not have any consitutional separation of church and state as does the USA, the UK (and especially England) is probably one of the least religious countries in the world.

Try telling that to these people.

Interesting, Proof.

quote:

Actually there does seem to be a modern trend towards aggressive atheism. It doesn't take the form of people going door to door with copies of a Richard Dawkins book trying to convert people but it does take the form of telling people that they are fools for believing and that no rational or sane person could ever believe in a god because there can, almost by definition, be no proof of the existance of a god. (After all if there was proof then it wouldn't be faith would it?)

I so agree with you, Bob. I wonder when that started happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Interesting, Proof.

quote:

Actually there does seem to be a modern trend towards aggressive atheism. It doesn't take the form of people going door to door with copies of a Richard Dawkins book trying to convert people but it does take the form of telling people that they are fools for believing and that no rational or sane person could ever believe in a god because there can, almost by definition, be no proof of the existance of a god. (After all if there was proof then it wouldn't be faith would it?)

I so agree with you, Bob. I wonder when that started happening.

As I was trying to indicate with the rest of my post I think it is growing alongside, and as a reaction to, the "you will burn in hell, unbeliever" brand of anti-atheism that is common from many believers of the main religions.
As I don't believe in hell other people thinking I'll burn there isn't of much consequence to me but it is unsettling.

Yes, I remember there was a minor fuss a year or so ago about posters on the sides of buses. Some group of Christians produced one that said something along the lines that all unbelievers would burn in hell.

A group of atheists came up with one that said something like "There probably is no god" in retaliation. The press made far more fuss over the atheist poster than the religious one.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

Incidentally, although the UK does not have any consitutional separation of church and state as does the USA, the UK (and especially England) is probably one of the least religious countries in the world.

Try telling that to these people.

I don't quite see the connection. This is all about local parishoners having to stump up to maintain their local church. Religion has very little to do with the issue.

Indeed, if the parishoners were devout Christians than they wouldn't be moaning about the cost. And of course, if God actually existed he could perform a quick miracle and sort the church out for himself. But there is no such creature and so it becomes the job of the humans (who are the ones who invented him) to deal with the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Yes, I remember there was a minor fuss a year or so ago about posters on the sides of buses. Some group of Christians produced one that said something along the lines that all unbelievers would burn in hell.

A group of atheists came up with one that said something like "There probably is no god" in retaliation. The press made far more fuss over the atheist poster than the religious one.

It was the humanists who did the job - http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

They also do a lot of other good work such as trying to eliminate religious privilege, such as the right of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords and the right of faith schools to indocrinate young children with their own brand of religious mumbo-jumbo.

They are always looking for more supporters, Bob

Something that amuses me greatly is that the majority of anti-secularists are members of Calvinist-influenced religions. Nearly all hate the French, yet John Calvin WAS FRENCH!

quote:

I don't quite see the connection. This is all about local parishoners having to stump up to maintain their local church. Religion has very little to do with the issue.

I don'[t think it is exclusively parishioners. It appears land-owners who may not be of that faith are required to fork over cash based on ancient covenants.

Yes, Geoff, and Jesus was a Jew.

quote:

I don'[t think it is exclusively parishioners. It appears land-owners who may not be of that faith

Yes, but it's only land-owners who live in that parish. The Anglican church, arrogantly, assumes that everyone living within the parish (that is, parishioners) is a member of their church and should therefore pay for their upkeep.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Yes, Geoff, and Jesus was a Jew.

This seems a non-sequitur. The extreme right now refers to its "Judeo-Christian heritage," and most are now backing a presidential candidate in the US who is a member of a church they considered to be a non-Christian sect just a few years ago. They still hate the "Godless" French, though.

RE: aggressive atheists
I agree, this is a trend. The Brits commenting on this see it as a response to aggressive anti-atheist slogans; 2 wrongs don't make a right. As to where it comes from, my aggressively atheist American friends come 100% from evangelically zealot backgrounds; I guess they too see turnabout as fair play.

RE: Anglican parishes attempting to obtain expensive repairs to ancient churches from local parishioners: shouldn't this sort of thing be funded nationally by some sort of cultural preservation trust? Whatever may have been working to keep old castles afloat, for example. Trying to enforce centuries-old law in this regard seems highly questionable.

OPEN QUESTION TO ATHEISTS: I have always felt you folks try to play both sides of the fence, which gets back to: what is the meaning of the word "atheist"? Technically, it appears to mean "against gods", but in practice it is used to mean "not believing in religion." Equal protection is valid to a degree; certainly, no one should be required to pray. However, setting atheism up as an equal, just different, belief seems disingenuous; it is an absence of belief, no?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bethree5,

Christian believe in a god. Atheists believe in non-god.

quote:

As I was trying to indicate with the rest of my post I think it is growing alongside, and as a reaction to, the "you will burn in hell, unbeliever" brand of anti-atheism that is common from many believers of the main religions.

I completely agree with that, Bob, and sorry that I hadn't indicated that as well. It clearly is a response to the fundamentalists' continuous rants about everyone, but them, burning in hell. The thing is, Bethree, how long can you just sit there and take it? That's just human.

And, for the record, I am not talking about all Christians...just those reactionary ones who think it's their way or the highway. There is plenty of space in this world for many diverse beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

I don't quite see the connection. This is all about local parishoners having to stump up to maintain their local church. Religion has very little to do with the issue.

I don'[t think it is exclusively parishioners. It appears land-owners who may not be of that faith are required to fork over cash based on ancient covenants.

If you live in a Parish then you are a parishioner. You don't need to be a churchgoer or even religious. The term "Parish" now has effectively no religious connotations; it is simply an area linked to a particular church.

quote:

OPEN QUESTION TO ATHEISTS: I have always felt you folks try to play both sides of the fence, which gets back to: what is the meaning of the word "atheist"? Technically, it appears to mean "against gods", but in practice it is used to mean "not believing in religion." Equal protection is valid to a degree; certainly, no one should be required to pray. However, setting atheism up as an equal, just different, belief seems disingenuous; it is an absence of belief, no?

I am an atheist and it is not a belief. It is, as you remark, an absence of belief in a deity (any deity). In the same way that "aseptic" means an absence of pathological microorganisms (or methods for ensuring this state), the "a" essentially means "absence".

So a theist will believe in a deity (it could be any one of the 28,000,000 that have supposedly existed according to this site - http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/How_many_gods%3F - ) and an atheist believes no deities exist.

One fascinating factoid that I found in this treatise is this: "...atheists and monotheists only differ by 0.000036% in their beliefs...". This is a mathematical exercise, of course, and you'll need to read the whole article to see how the figures have been arrived at.

Richard,

As you state, atheism is the absence of belief in a god, but later you say quote "...atheists and monotheists only differ by 0.000036% in their beliefs...". Surely atheists have no belief in a god?

That is why the bus sign I mentioned earlier is phrased the way it is (although I admit I can't recall the exact phrasing now): "There probably is no god". [Italics are mine] If atheists believed there is no god, the sign would be more definite: "There is no god".

I'm an atheist and I don't believe there is no god.

An absence of belief is not the same as a belief of absence.

I have a belief. I believe there is no God. That is every bit as much a belief as the belief that there is one.
An absence of belief would be to hold neither the view that there is a God nor the view that there isn't one. That's not atheism and it's wrong to characterise it as such. It's agnosticism. I don't want to get into an argument about this but bethree's final paragraph smacks of exactly the kind of "atheists are inferior" attitude that I was talking about.
So atheism isn't every bit as valid a belief system as religion? I agree. Atheism isn't equal because unlike religion it relies on actual evidence rather than pure faith (which, as I pointed out, is logically inconsistent with evidence). And that will be my final word on the matter because, as I said, other people's beliefs are a matter of little importance to me.

quote:

If you live in a Parish then you are a parishioner. You don't need to be a churchgoer or even religious. The term "Parish" now has effectively no religious connotations; it is simply an area linked to a particular church.

I cannot believe that an avowed atheist cannot see the contradiction in this statement. The simple fact of land ownership automatically makes you a member - whether you hold to their tenets or not - of that church, subject to taxation to keep that church from deterioration? If the church deosn't have enough support from its own members, it should be allowed to disband and/or combine with another branch. Totally disinterested or even antithetical neighbors shouldn't be forced to keep it upright.

There are other choices besides theism and atheism, for example nontheism (link) and transtheism (link) to mention just two. These distinctions have a bit to do with what has been being discussed here. The words god(s) and belief.

Since gods are by definition supernatural, there is no way to prove their existence or non-existence. I have never seen or been presented with a rational explanation for gods, so I find it unlikely that they exist. All we have is different adherents to different religions assurance that their particular god or gods exist. The problem I see with modern revealed monotheistic religions is that their entire foundation is based on the assertions of folks 2K to 4K years dead. So, it's just as easy to point at some atheist's blog and say: "Here, you see; god does not exist."

I do not believe in gods. In fact, for quite a while now, I've preferred not to even discuss it, because polite and rational discussion is not possible. This much I have observed. I do not believe in gods in the same way that I do not believe in evolution. Evolution is not a matter of belief. I just find it a likely and better explanation of how species originate and change over time than the usual origin myths of various religions.

Theists complaining that atheists are getting out of hand. Ha! that's a good one. To take an example: in the nearly 2K years that Christian theists ran much of the Western civilization, they did such a piss-poor job of things, that I find myself agreeing with the US founding fathers, that religion and government should be kept separate. The theists had their chance like monarchs of old, and they blew it.

I don't usually discuss religion, so why am I chiming in now. I'd much rather that we discussed words and languages, but it seems that the necessity that some find to discuss religion and politics is too strong. So, by all means continue squabbling amongst yourselves.

In another thread which I titled, "King of the Jews?" I cited Jacques Berlinerblau. It is his book, "How To Be Secular" that prompted this thread. In it he mentions that of the founders of the US Constitution, only a couple were not avowed Christians of one stripe of another who advocated a state/government separation, and one, Jefferson, was a deist. He further notes that Martin Luther wrote widely on the need for a secular state to balance matters purely religious. Quite an interesting read, IMHO!

The way in which this discussion about the meaning of "secular" has turned into a bit of an atheist rant is an example of why Berlinerblau feels the need for rational minds to step back and examine how secularism isn't an either/or proposition.

The two main causes of arguments, on the internet as in Real Life, are religion and politics. We are a language board and, although we are usually a pretty free and easy bunch, discussion of religion or non-religion has no place here. I won't take any further part in this thread either, except to lock it if it gets much further out of hand.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Richard,

As you state, atheism is the absence of belief in a god, but later you say quote "...atheists and monotheists only differ by 0.000036% in their beliefs...". Surely atheists have no belief in a god?

That is why the bus sign I mentioned earlier is phrased the way it is (although I admit I can't recall the exact phrasing now): "There probably is no god". [Italics are mine] If atheists believed there is no god, the sign would be more definite: "There is no god".

I'm an atheist and I don't believe there is no god.

You need to read the article to see how the figure is arrived at - but if atheists are at zero and monotheists only represent a minute fraction of the beliefs when spread around the 28,000,000 deities then there will only be that minute difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

If you live in a Parish then you are a parishioner. You don't need to be a churchgoer or even religious. The term "Parish" now has effectively no religious connotations; it is simply an area linked to a particular church.

I cannot believe that an avowed atheist cannot see the contradiction in this statement. The simple fact of land ownership automatically makes you a member - whether you hold to their tenets or not - of that church, subject to taxation to keep that church from deterioration? If the church deosn't have enough support from its own members, it should be allowed to disband and/or combine with another branch. Totally disinterested or even antithetical neighbors shouldn't be forced to keep it upright.

The term Parish now has only geographical significance. It is a historic hangover. Landowners in that geographical area have an obligation to support the church regardless of whether or not they use it.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
The two main causes of arguments, on the internet as in Real Life, are religion and politics. We are a language board and, although we are usually a pretty free and easy bunch, discussion of religion or non-religion has no place here. I won't take any further part in this thread either, except to lock it if it gets much further out of hand.

I thought the discussion here was very reasonable - although I can agree that religious debate can get heated.

quote:

The term Parish now has only geographical significance. It is a historic hangover. Landowners in that geographical area have an obligation to support the church regardless of whether or not they use it.

Once again, do you not see the contradiction? If it is a geographical area only, then there is no reason to force inhabitants to subsidize a private purpose - the rehabilitation of non-public buildings.

Then may I suggest we all read the above mentioned book, then discuss it?

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

The term Parish now has only geographical significance. It is a historic hangover. Landowners in that geographical area have an obligation to support the church regardless of whether or not they use it.

Once again, do you not see the contradiction? If it is a geographical area only, then there is no reason to force inhabitants to subsidize a private purpose - the rehabilitation of non-public buildings.

The ancient covenants gave the church the right to collect these funds from parishioners. Whereas it might be unfair, it was something set up maybe hundreds of years ago. It is not always possible to set aside these kinds of covenants, even if they seem unreasonable now.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
Then may I suggest we all read the above mentioned book, then discuss it?

Could you remind us which book?

This 'un! https://www.kirkusreviews.com/...u/how-to-be-secular/

There are two meanings for "factoid":

1. Something resembling a fact; unverified (often invented) information that is given credibility because it appeared in print

2. A brief (usually one sentence and usually trivial) news item.

I meant the second meaning.

I couldn't access Wordcraft this morning, so I thought I had been banned for starting this thread. Not so, it no seems. Whew!!!

If the question of the definition and function of "secular/secularism" can fill a 336 page book, it's not likely we'll be able to hash it all out here. Maybe I should have kept silent on the subject.

Let's go ahead and voluntarily stop posting in this thread. I have deleted my message above. There is some consternation about this thread, and z and arnie are right that this board is about words and language. While the original question was certainly a word related one, the thread did drift into areas of religion, which is not what this board is about. There are plenty of religious/non-religious boards out there, covering all beliefs (or non-beliefs).

Thank you very much.

[BTW, Geoff, the site has been on and off for me too this morning.]