God, I am so fucking tired of this trope. Idiots on both sides of the debate buy into this totally. Secularism is the notion that one can have a state even while citizens hold conflicting beliefs about the nature of the universe. That it can even have competing institutions and still maintain a cohesive civil society.
STOP MISUSING THE FUCKING TERM YOU IGNORANT MORONS!
Thank you.
Definition from Askoxford.com
I’m going to guess that my recent thread was a contributing straw to breaking this camel’s back, but even if it isn’t, I’ll admit I’ve never heard the term “secular” or “secularism” to mean anything but “lack of religion.” Is there some other term that I missed?
Maybe it didn’t mean “lack of religion” initially, but my experience suggests it’s an established use now. Merriam-Webster and every other dictionary I can find agrees with me. At some point you may have to suck it up and deal with the change in meaning.
It means not governed by religion. Which the United States and many other world nations are not. It is not reactionary and opposed to religion, as people like to make it sound. It is more indifferent to religion, as religion is not the primary mechanism for exerting power over the state. The United States is a TOTALLY secular state.
Nah, you’re just wrong. The nearest lifeline available to you is that secularism once meant what you say. I’d be grabbing for that with both hands if I were you.
Every dictionary reference I can find says that at most the meaning you contend for is one of several meanings (the wider meaning used by those you are pitting being another) and most don’t include your meaning at all.
The United States is in theory a totally secular state. If we were a truly secular state, the executive branch would not include an Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and Congress would not employ a chaplain.
/nitpick
That’s why I quoted from the real dictionary. ;p
President Obama will do away with that one pretty quickly I’d imagine.
Is “not religious, sacred, or spiritual” really that much different from “the absence of religion”? If so, it seems to me that you’re making quite a subtle point.
I agree.
Congress would have an Imam instead.
:d&r:
The office, maybe. I’d hope so. But Congress has employed a chaplain on taxpayer money since the First Congress and the Supreme Court has ruled that they are allowed to do so, and I expect that one will go away.
Stupid joke (as I understand you to be acknowledging), but also pointless. There is nothing in the definition of the term “chaplain” that prevents an imam from holding such a position.
Why do you think your quote supports you?
Well, I worded it poorly. Let me elaborate.
I mean, it is not the overall absence of religion in a society. The government itself is secular, IE, not religious, but that does not mean that the culture has to void itself of religion in order for the state to remain a secular state. The context in which the word is used abuses the word in such a way as to portray secular as though it is OPPOSED to religion.
Just because something does not DEAL with religion, doesn’t mean that religion is absent.
A secular society is one that can moderate the relationship of multiple belief systems. The irony being that the way it is commonly used implies that a single belief system should dominate.
Your quoted definition suggests nothing of the sort, although I admit that the phrase “moderate the relationship of multiple belief systems” is, shall we say, a bit opaque.
It is saying that the institution itself is not religious, not that the society it governs is devoid of religion.
So, does anyone have any thoughts as to what a secular priest is then?
Secularism is the absence of religion, though not neccessarily opposition to or hostility towards religion.
A secular government is a government from which religion is absent.
A secular society is a society from which religion is absent, or largely absent, or at any rate regarded as not being very important to daily life. The U.S. may have a secular government, but it is not a secular society (although there are areas, such as parts of the Pacific Northwest, that are much more secular than the “Bible Belt”). Many European countries have much more secular societies than the United States. Ironically enough, the UK*, which in theory does not have a secular government–that whole Church of England thing, along with the head of state being Defender of the Faith–has a more secular society than the U.S. “Wall of Separation” of A.
Actually, it’s England that has the Established Church. Wales and Northern Ireland don’t; the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland I think has some sort of status as a “National Church” but is not an “Established Church”.
Note that a secular society may not be anti-religious, it may even have a very high rate of very nominal adherence to some religion, like the Scandinavian countries where 90% of the population get married and buried in the Lutheran Church, but otherwise don’t really pay much attention to the whole religion thing. Religion may just be seen as a harmless, rather quaint, picturesque relic of the past. (In contrast to the feelings of many atheists and other nonbelievers in less secular societies; where large numbers of people still take religion very seriously, you are apt to have other people who take religion very seriously in a negative way.)
One can advocate a secular government (separation of church and state) without necessarily advocating a secular society, or one may of course advocate for both. The means of advocating may also be different; a secular government being something enforced by law and the Constitution, with a secular society being something to be worked for by way of peaceful persuasion and the voluntary decision-making of individuals (unless you’re some kind of Stalinist or something).
Then there is “pluralism”, which sounds more like what you’re getting at with this “moderating the relationship of multiple belief systems” thing. A society could be pluralistic but not secular–made up of devout members of multiple faiths. Or pluralistic and mixed between secular, devout (of multiple faiths), rabidly atheistic, etc. (Like the U.S., in other words.) In any event, pluralistic societies are well advised to have secular governments, so as to avoid the whole “holy war” thing.
“Secular”, at its root, means “of the world” or “worldly”. A “secular priest” is a priest who goes out into the world (i.e., ministers to a congregation) rather than being cloistered in a monastery or hermitage to live a life of pure religious contemplation.
One who is “not subject to or bound by religious rule?”
MEBuckner I’ll accept that