Secularism is has to do with bureaucratic structures and which group has power over them. What we call ‘secularism’ started as the Kings and Emperors of Europe exerting control over the governmental apparatus at the expense of the church. I think we are moving away from a state system, but secularism being a form of bureaucratic organization within a governing body, requires the state for relevance. The word secular has meaning outside of governance, but it the word secularism does not.
And in my opinion, I see it mostly as a type of self defense. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.
This is false. A secular government stays out of the way of religion. It doesn’t “replace” religion. Religion is still there. The state just refrains either from interfering with it or from mandating it or adopting any view as official.
I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. Attempting to convert people to your side as a defensive measure is still an attempt to convert. There was a time when Christianity was a slave religion, and the attempt to win converts was a matter of survival as well. And the Wheel of Fortune turns.
So much for agreeing to disagree, I guess. If I write an article or book showing my reasons not to submit to religious reason and/or rule, I am not necessarily trying to convert the reader to my point of view. I might just be saying, “You can believe whatever you want-here are the reasons I don’t believe that way, and why you should quit trying to convert me.”
I think you have contrived an imaginary system. Can you cite an example of a “secularist” state? Have you been watching a lot of Bill O’Reilly? He has also convinced himself that the world is being taken over be evil “secularists” (in a country where 90+% of the people, including almost every elected official self-identifies as theistic).
My point precisely. What I have been saying is that the viewpoint we call “atheism” is VASTLY underestimated, and it is mainly because we are tripping over definitions.
I love your Santa Clau analogy. I would estimate that 99.9% of adults are virtual “aclausists”. I would estimate that fewer than 1% would self-identify themslves with the label “aclausist” (since I suspect you just invented it). 
But I am constantly told that atheists are a mere one or two per cent of the US population. But we see that a whopping 27 million identify themslves as “no religion/secularist”. My guess is that there must be MILLIONS of virtual atheists hiding in that 27 million. I can’t prove it, but it is a reasonable hypothesis.
Just as there are millions of women who say “I am not a feminist, but . . . .” and then go on to espouse perfectly feminist ideas.
Every Country in North and South America, Most of the members of the EU except for Greece I think, All of the old Soviet Nations, China, South Korea, Japan, Most African Nations. Basically most of the countries in the world are secularist. I never used the word evil to describe secularism. I only described it as a political religion.
Well you took it a step further from merely asking leading questions that were obvious as to what you were driving at. Now that you have made a concrete statement of opinion its more interesting to engage you. If you are not trying to convert then you are not necessarily proselytizing. I see the books referenced as attempts to convert. If you disagree, please explain why.
None of those countries are “secularist,” and What does the EU have to do with anything?
You’re starting to sound a little paranoid. FYI, there is no such movement or political power as “secularism.” It doesn’t exist.
What I was driving at obviously was that your definitions were both overly broad and uninformed.
Because I’ve read the books you’ve referenced and you haven’t, therefore my opinion is based on the actual content of said books and not merely on their titles.
You are soooo right. And this is the nub of the matter and the point that theists always seem either incapable or unwilling to understand. Since most theists are not stupid, I can only assume that they choose not to understand.
If I can revert to the **OLD, OLD ** bone of contention about “In God we Trust” on the money, perhaps I can summarize it in a way that even the most dense can grasp:
-
Printing “In God we Trust” on currency: WRONG, because the state has no business expressing opinions on the existence of God.
-
Printing “God does not exist” on the money: Equally WRONG because the state has no business expressing opinions on the existence of God.
-
Printing non-religious information such as the value of the currency and other usual information: RIGHT, because then the state is doing what it is supposed to do. Staying the fuck out of any religious debates, thereby showing equal respect to the religious opinions of all its citizens.
The argument that removing references to God from public documents would be unfairly favouring atheists is specious and unfounded. No atheists to my knowldge has ever asked the US or other western governments to promote atheism. All we have ever asked is that the state show respect to all by staying neutral and silent on religious matters.
Secularlism is NOT the opposite of Theism. Atheism is the opposite. Secularlism allows the state to remain just and neutral on matters of religion.
Incorrect. My definition fits the first dictionary definition properly. You just don’t like it because you have an emotional hangup about the word proselytizing because one of the main tropes in these debates is to insult Christians for proselytizing, and you are annoyed at the suggestion that these men have lowered themselves to that level. As this thread has shown, many atheists here agreed with that characterization.
So you are just a crappy debater then, as you have relied solely on ad hominems, that I have found unconvincing. I have not read the books in their entirety but have read much about them, including things written BY the authors. If you have read the books, then your argument would be better suited to actually taking a stand and telling me why you do not approve of my position. Instead, you have resorted to a slightly more politic version of ‘you’re an idiot’ without actually saying why. This is why I wanted to get off the Moebius strip.
So, I am pretty close to tossing you in with Apos into the ‘rationalist trying to argue rationalism through emotional polemic box.’, which may or may not concern you, but I will just skip your posts in the future if you don’t take a stand and actually tell me what about the content of those books makes you think otherwise. What you are doing now is merely appealing to authority. “I have read them you haven’t so nananananananana.”, wasting so much of both of our time when you could have stated precisely what in their content made you think I was incorrect. Instead you have hounded me through three threads, and merely declared yourself some kind of victor in this debate, when you seem to be lacking whatever it takes to simply put your cards on the table so we can have a real debate.
This could not be more ignorant of history. Why don’t you dust off some books about the Phillip the IV King of France and read up on Charles V, Henry VIII, and Francis I. Watch the Tudors if you want the Cliff Notes version of it. A great book on the subject is “The Rise and Decline of the State” by Martin van Creveld, he spends at least 100 pages discussing the rise of secularism against the church. I recommend reading some Hegel and Marx while you are at it. For desert you can top it off with some Thomas Jefferson and/or Thomas Paine.
Don’t project your paranoia on me. Secularism was put into place by Deists. Atheists throughout history have been marginal figures at best, up until the 20th century when Communism, the first truly powerful atheist political ideology came into existance.
What the EU has to do with it is that most of the member states of the EU are Secular nations.
Western secularism, particularly in America has been influenced heavily by Hegel, who wrote about the state as deity. The Primacy of the state is based largely on this notion.
The mistake you are making is a common one that is being made here. It is thinking that because I postulate something that I am somehow against it. I am not against secularism. I see religious institutions as corporate brands like any other, and do not support any corporate brand that does not support myself and my family. I would not wish the United States to fall under any sort of religious authority, I like it fine the way it is, but to ignore the religious character of it’s political culture is IMO hopelessly naive.
Well there’s this Check out de-baptism in the left column. No comparison to religion I know but it does smack of some kind of movement. Don’t it?
Okay, that’s it. We’re through the looking glass, here, people.
Seacrest… out.
Through the looking glass? The history of the modern world in the west is about the fight between secularism and the church. I am surprised that this is considered to even be controversial here.
It’s troubling that you don’t understand our society. The whole point of a secular state is that it leaves citizens free to make up their own minds about religion and hash it out amongst themselves without trying to enlist the government on one side or another. A secular state is the BEST thing for a truly vibrant and free civil society.
So wait, you’ve now updated the issue of debate to “I’m amused and confused why people write books talking about stuff!”
Color me bemused.
I was out driving around town today. There were two separate religiious groups that had people waving placards at traffic (or diving into traffic to distribute their newspapers/tracts).
Not an atheist to be seen.
Don’t the atheists know they’re supposed to be proselytizing?
They were looking for a secular placard company. God took their crayons and magic markers away.
It’s a miracle.