Talk:Secularism

Most western societies are secular. Different religious believers, agnostics, and atheists can live side by side in a secular society, unless their urge to convert their fellow citizens gets too strong.

I'm not sure why there is an article here about secularism, but then, I haven't studied religion formally, and maybe it's a big topic in religious studies. At any rate, the above (I say as someone who is thoroughly nonreligious--I don't know what "God" means) really offensively biased. I wouldn't even know how to rewrite it. What does it mean to say that "most Western societies are secular"? See neutral point of view. --LMS

I didn't write the above, but calling Western societies secular isn't biased. (The urge to convert comment maybe is though.) In sociology/studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular: meaning that they have no established or state religion, there is near-complete freedom of religion (you can believe in any religion or none at all, with little legal or social sanction), and that religion is not as important in most people's lives as it once was. -- Simon J Kissane

The statement that it is "the lowest level of religiosity" seems definitely not NPOV! Some people regarding themselves as "secularists" insist that they are not religious and that's why they call themselves that. Besides, doesn't "secular" mean "pertaining to time", as opposed to pertaining to eternity? Michael Hardy 02:48 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

Conservative Right,secular or not secular? Role in Government

To further the discussion if rather slightly off-topic, can we consider the Christian Right a non-secular movement? Please put in context of the US First Amendment. Kings derived their power from God hence tyrannical ( divine right of kings ) which leads to abuse of power through political absolutism, elected representatives of government derived their power from the electorate through elections, democratically elected rather than appointed by God and thanks God.

Mike Huckabee, savior of the Christian Right extraordinaire, thusly;

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution... But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Yeah... I would say the religious right is indeed anti-secular, as well as anti-democratic, anti-civil rights and anti-Constitution. 193.253.237.223 (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

--220.239.179.128 (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Secular or non-secular

I'm very confused. in this article it say a secular government is a government without religion influence. However, many sites I search in the web refer the opposite, as "secular king" or "medieval secular authorities". Please someone explain. 201.8.212.191 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)user:SSPecteR 1 november 2006

Secularism and PM

(Unless i have erred, all times are UTC)
An editor has removed

One WikiPedian holds that this process is challenged by postmodernism, but chose not to indicate whether the whole 20k-byte article must be read in order to pursue this idea.

and asks, as summary for that, "How does this fit here? How did anybody miss this?"

I don't know whether what was considered to not "fit" and as "missed" was the injection of PM or the implicit critique of how it was injected.

The history of that text is:

• The text

This process is challenged by postmodernism.

was part of the intial text of Secularization, created by an edit 11:33, 2003 Oct 2.

• It was added to Secularism in conjunction with an edit of 11:54, 2003 Oct 2, that converted Secularization into a link to Secularism .
• I noticed it, and at 17:55, 2003 Oct 31 summarized "put stub bplate back at end; org see-also links, enhance PM link" as, among other changes, i replaced it with the just-removed text, and joined it to the preceding 'graph, instead of leaving it a one-sentence 'graph.

(The original sentence, BTW, was one of 4 sentences contributed by User:195.195.234.4 in their two article-creating edits related to PM, in Sept & Oct of 2003.)

My rationale for my change was that the PoV that PM has something important to say abt this subject may be relevant, but that the link is just a spam ad for PM as it stood, and that it needs being turning into something enabling the reader to better judge its relevance to their own interest. I had hoped the language i chose would function somewhat like stub boilerplate, applying to the link rather than a whole article. Given that that has not happened, i am happy to see it disappear from the article, but IMO the failure to move it to this talk page, and the uninformative and indignant summary which compounds it are counterproductive. Better it should have stayed there, saving me from this effort, but now that this talk-edit is done, IMO nothing more need be done about PM on this page, except by someone interested and informed enuf to add something amounting to "PM says not!" to the article.

(I am not in a position to say whether anything was missed by anyone other than the editor who precipitated this talk-edit by me, who missed the fact that at least i (in spite of my skepticism twd any PM critique of secularization and/or secularism), and probably at least a few other editors, disagreed with the judgement that reference to PM deserved deletion without substantive comment.)

Firstly my apologies for not having followed up the page history closely and informing myself of the "history" of the edit. Quite unpardonable. Having said that, One WikiPedian holds that this process is challenged by postmodernism, but chose not to indicate whether the whole 20k-byte article must be read in order to pursue this idea. sounds rather crude in an encyclopedia article. It certainly did not sound like a "stub boilerplate" to me, who was but a casual reader at the article. But, it did sound like a long-standing grouse over an edit-war, whose "seemingly ugly" precipitation on the article, was missed by the subsequent editors. As you rightly suggested, talk pages should be used to resolve points of misunderatanding. Translated, that would mean, you could have either let the "postmodernism reference" stand, and taken the issue to the talk page; or you could have deleted that line and come back, if the editor who put in the PM link, objects to the removal. Instead, you chose to put in a line. (that sounds quite sarcastic with the "20K" reference) That, certainly did not serve the purpose of "encouraging" the reader to finish what he said, me feels. Was it worthwhile a comment, anyway to stand for over a month? I disagree. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.chance 17:32, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

Lightning rod

I believe the following shouldn't be in this article (perhaps, if documented, it could be part of an article on the growing secularism of Europe and the US in the late 18th-early 19th century):

The lightning rod, for example, played a part during this period, due to the lack of its adoption by churches until the occurrence of disaster. David.Monniaux 11:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This sentence needs to be rewritten in English

When applied to society, secularism is considered to be any of a range of situations where a society less automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for conflict in various forms, than in recent generations of the same society.

Opposition to Secularism

In the section "The secular state" is, at best, mislabeled and misplaced.

To be included as part of Secularism it should be labeled "The secularist state".

Second, it does not describe either a secular state or a secularist state.

Third, it is poorly written, research, and biased. It is an attempt to make the case for secularism by a implying reasonable people willingly acquiesce to secularist states.

It claims, without reference, "(m)ost major religions accept the primacy of the rules of secular, democratic society."

It then goes on to claim "fundamentalism opposes secularism". There is no indication there is any other opposition, although the US Constitution's First Amendment stands in opposition to secularism's bias toward atheism over other religions.

After the claim "fundamentalism opposes secularism" it points out Christianity and Islam are the two largest groups of fundamentalists. This is a non sequitur. It implies these groups are opposed, en masse. What should be included are specifics about the opposition, including the reasoning behind the opposition

I have added a bit and a quote from the bible about secularism in that part of the article. This part, I agree, needs some revision and elaboration. In the future I plan to do this (edit -I wasn't signed in when I did the edit but I'm sure if anyone wants, they can pick it out from the description)----Elizabeth of North Carolina 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When the article says "most major religions accept..." etc, which major religions do not accept this? And how is acceptance/rejection manifested? --Dannyno 11:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Problematic Examples

• "In the United States we talk about Democracy but still have "in God we trust" printed on our money. In Iraq we talk about Democracy but the constitution of Iraq calls for the country to be ruled by sharia law which would be a theocracy." do you think this part is ok? Apart from the language which should be corrected, still the two examples are just not proper, in my point of view. I guess through the article the view of theocracy is also a little bit problematic. I guess we can give better examples to democratic but not secular, secular but not democratic and finally democratic but also theocratic states... can't we? - Kubra 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of suppressing these examples, give the reader some more. --Wetman 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this fits under "Problematic Examples", but "The majority of Christians are proponents of a secular state..." ought to be backed-up with a citation and/or possibly be followed by a "with noteable exception" for the U.S. While the United States is considered a large secular Christian state, polling by the Pew for the last 10 years has consistently shown a majority of Americans want churches to offer political guidance. [1] It also seems POV to single out Christians, as if implying that other religious followers do not, by majority, back secularism. If you class Shinto, Buddhism, and Hinduism as religions, as an agnostic or ignostic might, I would guess the percentage of followers favoring a secular government would be very high. For comparison, it would be useful to have statistics for Muslim and Jewish populations, especially for those in countries which have religious-based laws, such as Saudia Arabia and Israel.

While there should be a citation to back up the statement the Pew poll you link to does not show the United States to be an exception. There is a vast difference between having religions, religious ideas, and/or religious institutions involved in governance and wanting religious institutions to voice political opinions or offering political guidance to their members. The Pew poll, as you state, shows a slight majority wanting the latter, and says nothing about the former (certainly it does not show a majority of Americans opposed to a secular state).PelleSmith 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Secular People?

"It should be noted though that Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark are among the most secular countries in the world when measuring the amount of religious persons as percent of the population."

I don't understand the logic here. Does it make any sense to refer to people as secular people? Aren't they usually called atheist? or agnostic?

Is this really relevant when secularism is supposed to grant freedom of religion, rather than deliver the elimination of religion?

It is relevant because without informing the reader that most scandinavian people aren't actively religious, the segment could lead the reader to think that the reason for the civil liberty reforms in Scandinavian countries is, in fact, due to their Christian affliation. Which would be entirely wrong. I can't speak for the other countries, but our 'arch' bishop here in Norway is a conservative hardliner who claims, amongst other things, that homosexuality is a disease. Joffeloff 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Let me quote:

Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities. For instance, eating a meal, playing a game, or bathing are examples of secular activities, because there is nothing inherently religious about them. Saying a prayer or visiting a place of worship are examples of non-secular activities. An approximate synonym for secular is worldly.

And,

Secularism refers to a belief that many human activities and decisions should be free from religious interference. For example, a society deciding whether to promote condom use might consider the issues of disease prevention, family planning, and biblical righteousness. A secularist would argue that the religious issues are irrelevant to the decision.

Secularism is not measured by the percentage of religious people. Rather, it is the political stance of the state towards religious beliefs. Therefore, by right this statement must go. --Ariedartin 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If "secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities" and there are many people in a population who do not practice religion (as is undeniably the case in Denmark, Norway, etc), then the percentage of non-religious people makes the country in question a rather secular one. To argue with such a statement is like arguing that a country whose population is 99.9% Muslim (hypothetical example) is a secular country if the laws aren't aligned with Islam. When you're talking about a country, you owe an explanation of the practices of its population. If you want to exclude these practices from your statement and only judge the country by its laws, then you cannot be talking about the total country but only that country's government. Anyhow, if anything, the statement could be rephrased; no need to delete it (deleting would only reflect a pet peeve of the individual deleter, not any sort of agreement among wiki editors). Would you object to rephrasing it along the lines of "It should be noted though that the populations of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark are among the most secular in the world when measuring the amount of religious persons as percent of the population" ?? This makes the statement specific to the populations and avoids entanglement with the laws of the nations in question. 65.195.133.120 20:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Sweden independent since year 2000

Since year 2000 there is no connection between church of sweden and the government, so I delete sweden from the list of nordic countries with offical churches. More info on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Sweden

There are movements in America which seek to unify Church and State, and that doesn't automatically mean that these movements are right.

Likewise, the mere existence of movements seeking disestablishment in Norway does not mean that these movements are right.

India : Separation of State and Religion

Indian President and Prime Minister yearly greets Citizens more than 20 times on each and every occsations such as Deepawali, Holi, Eid and Birth or death Anniverswaries of Religion Leaders.

Parliament has enacted many Acts related to Religion only such as grant or subsidiries for Kumbha Melas or Haj Piligrims and separate Act for Marriage for Hindus and Mushlims.

My question is India secular or not?

vkvora 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

~

Well as far as I know about India, I think it's a semi secular country. A complete secular country provides equal opportunities for all of its citizens without any prejudice. As we all know there have been deliberate ( many say that...) attempts to keep the religious minorites more backward and illiterate. Although India has a huge minority population, but they are under-represented in many matters. The upcoming Succhur committee report( sorry if the spelling is wrong) has revealed many facts in this regard. So India is Secular if we go by the constitution, but in reality it's not so secular. Realton 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the constitution http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html it is completely secular as far as the law is concerned.

EAKugler (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, India is not secular. Lower caste Hindus cannot enter temples of Upper caste Hindus. Also, lower-caste Hindus cannot be appointed as priests of their own temples. Anwar (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question. You're talking about the way lower castes are considered within Hindu religion, whereas we're trying to determine how they're considered by the law of their country. Catholic and most Protestant women in the U.S. aren't allowed to be priests in their churches, does this mean America's not secular?

In this case though, I agree with you. The Indian national code is not secular; it's generally based in Hindu religion, and there are a number of "seperate" civil codes that are there to make up for the Hindu domination of the country - sort of a religion-based affirmative action, so for example Sharia law applies to Muslims, but not anyone else. In addition, not every region recognizes people's right to convert (in fact most of them don't).

Government and religion are heavily intertwined in India, with the government doing everything it can to make sure that all religions are treated equally. There is, however, no separation of church and state. Indian law does not recognize all individuals as equal before the law regardless of religion, quite the contrary, it regards them as having different rights depending on their religion. So no - India is not secular. Perhaps confessional would be a better word? 213.181.226.21 (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

Did Jesus invent secularism? I'm not saying this to shock. But consider his famous "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and unto God those things that are God's". This seems to me to be the first time a separation of Church and State has been mooted. Augustine's "City of God" would seem to elaborate on this separation. Rhinoracer 09:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I dare say you can interpret it like that, but what isn't said there is how you decide what things are Caesars and what things are Gods. As usual, it's entirely ambiguous. For all we know, Jesus may have thought that government belonged to God. --Dannyno 09:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the bible means exactly what you said, that does not mean Jesus invented secularism, there were secular bodies thousands of years before the believed birth of Christ. --Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Secular activities

I think this could bear more discussion. "Eating a meal" was changed to "eating fast food". I thought that the change could have been intentionally insulting to secular activities (ie secular activities are like fast food compared with the proper square meal of religion!), but might also have been made on the grounds that meals are a key element of many religions. Obviously that doesn't make eating meals *inherently* religious, but in order to avoid any debate, I changed the example to "shopping". For the record, I had no problem with "eating a meal" in the first place.

However, there is a problem. And that problem is that I'm not sure that "inherently religious" is the best standard here.

For a start, "visiting a place of worship" is not inherently religious. I visit places of worship, as a tourist. So do lots of nonreligious people. So couldn't "visiting a place of worship" appear in the list of secular activities?

I don't think, really, that a "secular" activity can be adequately defined as "not inherently religious". I think there must be something more fundamental than that. --Dannyno 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was there necessarily about to be an argument over fast food vs. meal? The problem is that any activity could be religious within a certain context. In our Western past the secular was conceptually seperated from the "religious" because the boundary was maintained by the Church. Such is not our case here, and given the highly divergent religious traditions around the globe no neat boundaries can be drawn in an all encompassing manner. If we include Zen Buddhism then literally ANY activity could be "religious", for instance. I really think that the "inherently religious" qualification is the best that we can do given that any activity could be secular (even saying a prayer) and any activity could be religious (even shopping). My contention is that if you delete meal, you would by the same logic have to delete the others.

Also the secular is by definition that which is not religious, so how can the distinction be any more fundemental than that? Maybe the problem is with trying to identify secular and religious "activities" in some normative fashion and not with the basis of the distinction. If there is a proposal to reword the introduction and get rid of the very notion of identifying normative types of activities on religious vs. secular grounds then I would be in favor of that.PelleSmith

23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an advocate of deleting "meal" in the abstract, let me be clear. Only because it was changed did I try a different example. Even in Christianity, any activity can be sacred. If you're Jonathan Edwards, for example, the triple jump is for the greater glory of God! But if any activity may be religious or secular depending on the intentions of those engaged in it, then no activity is "inherently" either religious or secular, and in that case the usefulness of the definition is called into question. Given these difficulties, and given that as it stands the introduction is incorrect (since visiting places of worship is not inherently religious), I would favour abandoning the attempt to list "secular" activities and considering instead what distinctions we really need to make. --Dannyno 09:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dannyno is correct, of course. Religious people pray before everything. From their point of view, "secular" is extracting the spiritual from everything, a failure or inability to see the spiritual in everything around us. In fact, the term "secular" did not exist before the 19th century. Many people prayed before all events. By defining activities as uniquely secular (which could be everything, of course), religious people feel that the secularists are trying to paint them out of the picture. Perhaps there needs to be two definitions for the term, admitting that there is a disagreement. Student7 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, however you cannot make claims about "religious people" in general. "Religious people" vary quite a bit, and many would not agree with your assumptions about for instance, praying before everything. Of course the same is true for "Secular people". I agree that perhaps we should not identify activities as secular and religious inherently. Above I wrote "Maybe the problem is with trying to identify secular and religious "activities" in some normative fashion and not with the basis of the distinction. If there is a proposal to reword the introduction and get rid of the very notion of identifying normative types of activities on religious vs. secular grounds then I would be in favor of that." I'm still very much in favor of this. Any ideas? I'm not sure what you are implying about two definitions. You want a religious definition of secularism?PelleSmith 18:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Not two definitions. Secularism should define itself. Just want to be clear about what secular is. It is not obvious to the supposedly neutral observer what is inherently secular and what isn't. I've changed the lead paragraph. If you change it again, I suggest it be a positive statement, and not try to list examples. Incidentally, I'm hoping for a crisp definition here since I'm trying to link to it from other articles! So I do have that vested interest!  :) Student7 22:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Secularism is not concerned with the supernatural nor the metaphysical

You'd have thought these were understood as part of what "secular" simply means. The bolded texts were excised by User:PelleSmith: "free from religious or spiritual qualities, assessing natural causes without reference to the supernatural--with the edit summary being free from "religious" qualities has no necessary connection to a distinction between "supernatural" and "natural" causes-- and the text "An approximate synonym for secular is worldly in the sense "of this physical world", although from a Christian or a metaphysical point of view, "secular" may be used as a contrast to "spiritual"."-- with the edit summary: the distinction between physical and meta-physical is not inherent in this defintion and puts a POV frame on the dichotemy I wonder what "POV" means in such a context? Neither the supernatural nor the metaphysical is addressed in secularism. It is just part of the definition, though perhaps User:PelleSmith has not taken a moment to consider this. Can it be new to anyone? Perhaps this editor is hazy too about "metaphysical". "POV" I assume is merely the usual club to beat us with that signifies "not to my taste". Does the editor not understand that supernatural is what is not secular, and that religion is merely part of the supernatural? Is this difficult?--Wetman 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok maybe I should have explained the edits here, for which I appologize and will now provide such an explanation. However, it should be noted that the edits I changed were themselves rather significant yet the edit summary had no mention of them--it only mentioned the last and most minor edit "corrected misperception about 'time'". While I'm sure this was done in good faith, the two sets of edits should have been seperate as those that I changed were not correcting any mispercetion about time. Also lets please be civil and not make condescending assumptions about other editors such as "perhaps User:PelleSmith has not taken a moment to consider this" and "[p]erhaps this editor is hazy too about 'metaphysical'". Adress the issues with content not editors themselves.

The following quoted text from above is enough to explain the problem here:

"Does the editor not understand that supernatural is what is not secular, and that religion is merely part of the supernatural? Is this difficult?--Wetman 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)"

Unfortunately this is not an accurate statement at all. Here is but one example of what the definition of "secular" looks like in a popular dictionary (www.m-w.com).

1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners> 2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest> 3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>

Now is there anything in this definition about the supernatural?

(Of course there is not: The reason? Secularism is not concerned with the supernatural nor the metaphysical. Further dictionary definitions of "secular" concerning "secular priests" and infinite duration of time are red herrings that, doubtless unintentionally, carry us away from Secularism, the subject of the article. No characterization of religion belongs in the article whatsoever: this was my error. Wetman 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

You are incorrect again. Read what is right before your eyes. Forget about the definitions that you call "red herrings" for a moment. Look at the one that sits at the heart of this entry: "not overtly or specifically religious". This entry, and secularism, have everything to do with religion. Secularism has no existence without its opposite. Your mistake is that you are continuously thinking that we can secure emperically an idea of what a secular realm looks like, when it is by definition always and only relative to "religion". There is no objective, emperical, stable "secularism". When religion, the necessary opposite, without which the secular does not exist, can be variable and spans several domains (within which belief system, and issues of supernatural order are but a partial picture) so can the "secular". Of course I explained this already.PelleSmith 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The dimension of a given religion that the "supernatural" refers to is usually related to metaphyics, but neither the supernatural, or metaphysical concerns in general are the core principles, and certainly not the sole principles of religion. By stating that the secular is of the physical world, and then seperately invoking a "metaphyiscal" perspective, a false dichotemy is posited between secular/physical/material order, and spiritual/metaphysical/non-empirical order. As if metaphysics necessarily explain a reality not based upon hard, emperical, "physical" fact.

(That is why "metaphysics" is not "physics" All this concerns religion and is immaterial to Secularism. Wetman 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

See above. You are wrong again--concerns religion quite a bit. You are using the "popular" definition of metaphysics which has now thrown me for a loop because you attacked me above for not knowing what it means, causing me to assume that you were using the technical definition. Yes in popular jargon it often means that which is beyond the physical world, but in philosophy, to dumb it down, it refers to explanations of the "nature of the world". In our contemporary world, this may (yet may not) include explanations which transcend what we would consider the physical world, or emperically verifiable facts. But the dichotomy, again, is a fantasy of some kind. Religion does not deny physics, and secuarlism does not deny metaphysics, even in the popular sense. You may find specific cases in which this is true, but there are plenty to show that it by no means the majority. Atheism, I should note, does deny what it sees as a non-emperical (non-physical) metaphysic. I'm getting even more certain now that this is where your confusion is coming from.PelleSmith 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All of this promotes a classic materialist/atheist reading of religion--as being defined through a worldview regulated by supernatural powers which themselves explain the nature of reality. This is why I mentioned the POV frame. Religion is not defined as such, and the Mirriam Webster defitinition of the secular accurately reflects the variation by not making supernatural inherent.

(No "reading" of religion should appear in an article on Secularism. Wetman 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Again untrue. See above. Could you define the act of "stopping" without an understanding of "moving"? PelleSmith 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Social scientists, for instance, do not define religion in those terms. A good illustration of the difference in usage comes from the third part of the first definition above, where what is secular is simply that which is not regulated by the church as an institution. Metaphysics, as such, do not factor into the equation, and no assumption about metaphysics or about natural vs. supernatural causation does either. Actually this is a fact consistant with ALL of the definitions provided by M-W and I would hazard to guess for the exact reason I have explained. While I am not accusing the editor of consciously putting in POV material, the material amounts to POV because it invokes a very particular reading of religion and hence the dichotemy between the religious and the secular.

On a final note I am not sure where the idea that "religion is merely part of the supernatural" comes from, but to someone studying religion that statement sounds quite odd. I don't recommend insinuating a lack of understanding on the part of another editor and then making bold claims which have no scholarly backing, and in a literal reading sound absurd Religion can refer to a community, an institution, a traditional set of ritual practices, an individuals moral obligations and/or beliefs, amongst other things that are not necessarily part of the "supernatural".PelleSmith 13:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I get criticized for this let me clarify one thing. The secular "can be" concerned with that which is not supernatural or that which does not have supernatural causes, but it is not "inherently" so. That is why I have gone through the pains to point out the distinction between the "religious" and the "supernatural" and why I think such statements do not belong in the introduction to the page.PelleSmith 13:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The above was offered by PelleSmith as justification for the following two actions:

1. Suppressing the fact that the state is assessing natural causes without reference to the supernatural. This is a necessary part of the normal definition of secularism and can't be deleted simply because someone doesn't like it: the suppression of the phrase is unjustifiable. The Supreme Court does not take the supernatural into consideration: it is entirely secular. To say that the secular "can be" concerned but not "inherently"... yada yada, is dust in our eyes. What is being protected here? Secularism simply ignores religion and astrology etc.

Why not produce references to how this is "a necessary part of the normal definition of secularism" instead? Show me that my view is not replicable in academia. Also please be careful if you do this not to conflate atheism and secularism, and not to pick one secularist ideology, but to look at category definitions.PelleSmith 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Changing An approximate synonym for secular is worldly in the sense "of this physical world" to read ...is worldly in the sense "this worldly". Why? This is simply a mystification. The secular world is the physical, rational word: substituting "this worldly" does not express the facts.

Again, feel free to produce some academic reference to this assertion. Do you think our "secular" legal system is completely "rational"? Do you think that the Church has never been "rational"? You are presenting an Enlightenement fantasy.PelleSmith 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is simple: secularism is not concerned with the supernatural: this means that astrology does not enter into elections and cults do not control education, that weather gods don't provide the weather report. Religion is simply irrelevant in secularism. It's not a player: if it is a player, then it's not secularism, is it?. As I asked, Is this really so difficult? I do sincerely doubt it. --Wetman 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You have repeated the same falasy several times. Please deal with my simple proposition. Find a definition of secularism that does not define it as that which is not religious. Also, please deal with the fact that religion can be a player without there being any issue of the supernatural invovled--this is why i used "can be" earlier. Church control, however rational, or emeprically scientific it is, would always be NOT SECULAR because the Church is a "religious" institution. According to your definition, or insistance, the Catholic Church, at least since the Middle Ages would have exercized a great deal of, if not mostly, secular power. You think they made their political decisions based on oracles? Based upon scripture? Based upon Theology? Come on. Wrap your head around the fact that secularity is simply that which is not religious, which isn't necessarily that which is not "supernatural".PelleSmith 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible to be confused by reading books, or worse reviews of books, like Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers, where secularism and "freethought" at times seem synonymous. I could sum up most of my argument above by saying that Secularism in its multifarious forms should not be conflated with a philosophy like Freethought (a particular secularist ideology), however related they may be.PelleSmith 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Secularism "part of" WikiProject Atheism?

Can anyone explain why this page is "part of" WikiProject Atheism? The idea that secularism would be part of a project on atheism seems entirely absurd. Secularity can describe quiet a bit that is not necessarily atheistic. In fact by putting secularism under an umbrella of atheism we align secularity with the theistic/atheistic dimension of the dichotemy between religion/non-religion in a very simplistic manner, as if secularity is about a freedom from the belief in a god or multiple gods, instead of a descriptor for things not religious. If anything atheism should be a part of a WikiProject called Secularism, that is "if anything". What can be done about this? Does anyone else agree that this page should not be part of WikiProject Atheism?PelleSmith 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm noticing that atheism is actually a subcategory of secularism, which I obviously think is logical. On the one hand WikiProjet Atheism claims to deal with articles "related to" atheism and secularism is clearly related to atheism. However, it still seems entirely misguided to list secularism as part of a project on atheism, which is itself a subcategory of secularism.PelleSmith 04:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Entirely agree that secularism and atheism should not be conflated. Case in point: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) is thoroughly secularist (at least in states other than Utah) on the issue of school prayers. They take this view because they know full well that any school prayer that might be instituted would not be a Mormon prayer. Similarly with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, etc. One important facet of secularism (at least in the more moderate sense) is the protection of religious minorities, with the result that many devout people must take a secularist view of government. Paul 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

"Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities."

Being "free" from religios or spiritual qualities?

Are religious or spiritual qualities some sort of psychological imprisonment from which we must forcefully liberate ourselves? Are they some form of slavery from which we need to be "freed?"

How about ' Secularity is the state of being without religious or spiritual qualities' - sounds less biases to me, anyway. 139.67.203.19 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree without is better, because it cannot be read the way you are reading "free".PelleSmith 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it slightly from

"evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs"

to

"evidence and fact, and not beliefs which secularists consider superstitious"

because the word [superstition] is not neutral, and means different things to different people. Thus is it is a fact that many secularists regard religion as being superstitious, but it is also a fact that the Church would not.

See the Wikipedia entry for superstition for more details.

This sentence was nonsense anyway -- it's not any sort of reasonable definition of "secularity," and it's also pejorative. If not worded carefully, it can be pejorative in more than one direction simultaneously! Paul 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

American Civil Liberties Union

How is the ACLU an organization that promotes "secularism"? Go to American Civil Liberties Union and see how it clearly states that they promote a person's right to practice whatever religion that person desires. They promote religous pluralism as the "effect" of religious freedom, and not secularism. On what grounds should we include them here?PelleSmith 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• The ACLU promotes secularism within the United States government. Look at the top of the secularism page! What does it say? "Secularity is the state of being without religious or spiritual qualities." The ACLU, regardless of what it says on its website, clearly drives towards this object; as such, the organization deserves a mention in the Secularism article. LAATi88 06:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not refering to the organization's website, I was refering to its entry here on Wikipedia which I wikilinked in my response. The ACLU strives towards maintaining the religious freedoms provided to American citizens through our Constitution--in other words that is their explicit aim. In order to keep the seperation of church and state, the disestablishment mentioned in the constitution, the ACLU may fight particular religious groups in order to keep their doctrines or symbols from getting mixed up with the symbols, institutions, and other structures of the state. I am well aware of the fact that members of the politcal right have critized the ACLU for going too far and of actively promoting a much more ideological "secularist agenda". However that is a matter of controversy and not fact, while the other organizations listed in this entry are explicitly secularist. Particularly given this fact, it is more than likely that other nations have similar organizations, that are criticized by religious groups as promoting secularism. Should we add then all to this list? Should we create a seperate list--"organizations that are criticized for promoting a secularist agenda"? The entry would become too unwieldy. It is about secularism and not American secularism. Maybe if an entry existed on Secularism in the United States, there could be a controversy section in which organizations accused of promoting a secuarlist agenda were mentioned.PelleSmith 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree w/ Pelle on all points. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is strictly a confusion over definitions. ACLU is a staunch supporter of the moderate version of Secularism, but not of the more extreme version. Paul 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The ACLU was started by communists. You know any commies that go to church?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedian commentary

I removed the sentence that listed abortion, stem cell research and sex education as examples of where "decisions" are based upon religious belief. It was merely the commentary of some Wikipedian. There was NO citation given for the sentence. Also, the sentence was unclear and pointless. It referred to "decisions" but it did not point out what "decisions." It did not state who was making these decisions. The whole section was just an appendix to the section before it. I removed the POV sentence. Also, the original sentence referred to "stem cell research." The sentence did not point out who was making these strange "decisions" on what issues and it gave the completely false and misleading impression that there only one type of stem cell research, I assume the type of stem cell research that Michael J. Fox advocates. It showed a complete lack of understanding of stem cell research and the facts and logic behind all areas of stem cell research. There are scientific reasons to disagree with embryonic stem cell research, but you would not know that from the propaganda sentence. There are types of stem cell research that are scientifically superior to embryonic stem cell research, but you would know that from the propaganda sentence. Removed.--Getaway 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. There is no reason to nitpick over this, an overwhelming majority of the opposition to abortion, stem-cell research comes from people/organizaions et al who are motivated by religious reasons, not scientific ones. This is simply common sense :) Exceptions don't make the rule. Baristarim 20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for the commentary by Wikipedians. You admit in your response that the removed information is commentary. It must be removed until there is a citation to back it up. Also, in your response you state, "opposition to" "stem-cell research comes from people/organizations et al who are motivated by religious reasons, not scientific ones." In your response, you make my point for me. There is no opposition to "stem-cell research" sic. That is your opinion. There is opposition to embryonic stem cell research, not stem cell research. Your response makes my point entirely. Since it is commentary of a Wikipedian, then it is based upon the words of a Wikipedian and that leads to mistakes in wording such as the one that I just pointed out. Also, you are asking for an exception to the clear Wikipedia rule that this situation requires a citation to an outside source for this commentary. I can't see the need for an exception in this situation. If you are correct and it is, as you state, "simply common sense" then you should not have any trouble whatsoever finding a citation to back up the commentary that you want to add to the article. If it is well-known then by all means provide a citation that backs up your claim that "opposition to stem-cell research comes from people. . .motivated by religious reasons." Also, in your response, you seem to quote some source for the phrase, an overwhelming majority to back your claim that your position is common sense and therefore does not need an citation, but you do not provide the name of the source that you are quoting. Once again, if it so "overwhelming" then you should not have any difficulty showing me hundreds of citation, much less just one. Have a good day!--Getaway 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a fact tag next to it. Now that the issue has been raised, I am sure that the regular contributors of this article will check into it - I am not one of them. It is not a commentary btw. I could have said embryonic stem cell research then, happy? :) A note has been made in the talk page, I am sure that the regular contributors will look into it. Baristarim 20:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We will see. However, you did not respond to my other comments about the sentence. For example, it is vaguely worded and there no understanding what is meant by "decisions." These issues will be taken care of. And finally, once again, if the commentary, and it IS commentary, simply expresses "common sense" then you should not have to wait on another contributor to find a citation for you because you should be able to just pull one down immediately. Once again, thank you for making my point for me.--Getaway 20:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets give people a chance to look into it and find an adequate citation. Where on earth does the opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research come from if not religion? The scientific community certainly does not define human life as starting with a fertilized embryo. This is pretty acknowledged stuff--I think what was meant by "common sense". I'm sure a citation will be found soon.PelleSmith 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of scientists that oppose embryonic stem cell research on scientific grounds. There are several alternatives to embryonic stem cell research including adult stem cell research and cord blood stem cell research. This is scientific fact. Keep your commentary out. Go find a quote to back up the commentary and then insert that. Of course, I will review it. But right now it is just your personal commentary and as such it violates Wikipedia. Have a good day! Oh, P.S. I was correct the Britannica study was the one and the same as the World Almanac study.--Getaway 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the commentary is poorly written. What "decisions" is the editor referring to???? It is just poor grammar and it states very little, but the opinion of a Wikipedian.--Getaway 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

PelleSmith reverted my work again, but yet he has refused to respond to the poor grammar of the sentence. PelleSmith needs to edit in good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getaway (talk • contribs) 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Rewrote section to remove poor grammar amongst other things. Take a look.PelleSmith 15:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The section makes more sense now. Almost ALL policy decisions have a religious background to it, whether we want to admit it or not. I would still like to see a citation for the esc res, abortion, and sex ed claims, though. Best,--Getaway 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation done.PelleSmith 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge with Secularity

I strongly oppose this merge as secularity and secularism are entirely distinct concepts (see above discussion). The former refers to a state of being not religious and the latter refers to one of many ideologies which promote this state of being in one way or another. Any up to date dictionary can verify this information, not to mention the fact that the recent good work of an editor on this entry has made the distinction clear within Wikipedia (lets not regress here). Also, as a point of information, there are several other entries like secularization which are also clearly distinct but just as related to secularity as secularism is.PelleSmith 16:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggest this merge but I support it. Having two articles on the 'religious' meaning of secular is confusing and redundant. The article Talk:Secularity (non-religiosity) violates two official policies of WP: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability; and therefore should be deleted. Hope this helps.—Who123 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing redundant or confusing about the fact that these are two separate terms with distinct meanings. There are not "two articles on the 'religious' meaning of secular" at all. As for your discussion of Secularity (non-religiosity), that belongs on its talk page. In fact such a discussion is already underway on that talk page but you seem to have lost interest in it.PelleSmith 19:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The adjective form of "secularism" is "secularistic" and NOT "secular". This can easily be seen in at Merriam Webster Online or at Dictionary.com.PelleSmith 13:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Let us see what your sources actually say: Merriam Webster Online - secularism = "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations". Merriam Webster Online - Secularity refers to "secular" = "not overtly or specifically religious". Merriam Webster Online does not support the distinct difference in meaning between the two forms of the word that is suggested by separate articles on WP. Dictionary.com - secularism = "1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element." Dictionary.com - Secularity = "secular views or beliefs; secularism". Dictionary.com actually equates the two terms in complete opposition to your position, rather than supporting it. —Who123 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. One of the two noun forms at dictionary.com suggests in 1 of its 3 definitions that the terms can be synonymous. Here is the entire entry at Dictionary.com:

1. sec·u·lar·i·ty –noun, plural -ties. 1. secular views or beliefs; secularism. 2. the state of being devoted to the affairs of the world; worldliness. 3. a secular matter.
2. sec·u·lar·i·ty n. pl. sec·u·lar·i·ties 1. The condition or quality of being secular. 2. Something secular.

Please note that the first of the two above is sourced to "Dictionary.com" while the second is sourced to an actual print dictionary "American Heritage". If you want to settle the definitional issue more definitively I will gladly access the Oxford English Dictionary later today (and yes the OED is considered the definitive source for definitions of words in all forms of the English language). If you look back to Miriam Webster you can see quite clearly how you have proven yourself wrong. It is the "indifference or rejection or exclusion of" part that makes "Secularism" an ideology while "secularity" is an objective reflection on a state of being. I fail to understand how you can continue to ask us all to overlook this basic distinction.PelleSmith 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Secular, secularity, secularism, secularization, secularist, and secularly are all the same word in different forms. As with most words, the words can represent multiple concepts. When "ity" is added to the end of a word, it indicates the state. When "ism" is added to the end of a word, it indicates the idea or concept. When "ization" is added to the end of a word, it indicates changing towards. It would be much clearer to include all of these words in one article where the differences could be explained. As such, I strongly support this merge.—Who123 13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see above. The -ism does not simply indicate the "idea or concept" it indicates the "ideology" and as such this ideology suggests that the "idea or concept" is GOOD. That is why the adjective form (once again) of secularism is "secularistic" and not "secular".PelleSmith 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Pelle; the distinctions are probably often blurred (and may not always be clear in a sentence), but the distinction seems useful to maintain in terms of separate articles. Particularly if you're talking about "secularist organizations," for instance, that's very different from merely "secular organizations." At the same time, I think people do often speak of "secularism" simply to mean "secularity," which isn't necessarily incorrect, and might deserve a sentence of clarification in the lead. Mackan79 15:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you check out the scholars who write on these issues, you'll see the discussions are different. "Secularization," for instance, is the sociological process, basically a study of trends. "Secularism" is, as Pelle says, the principle that certain things (or everything) should be kept non-religious. "Secularity" isn't a very common word, but "secular" is really just an adjective, which would hardly need an encylopedia entry. They all have subtle meanings, though, which is why you couldn't really put them under the same title (plus there would just be too much material). Mackan79 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If nobody minds, I'll give it another day or so and then remove the merge proposal, which has been up since May 16. Thanks, Mackan79 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This article should be included in the "Secularity (disambiguation)" article.

It appears to me that Secularism needs to be included in the Secularity (disambiguation) article. I tried to do it (see article history) but another editor blocks all my edits.—Who123 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You changed the disambiguation page as well this entry after I pointed out to you (on Talk:Secularity (non-religiosity)) that Secularity and Secularism are two distinct and seperate concepts. I have attempted to explain the difference many times over. A disambiguation page for "secularity" should disambiguate usages of that term and not other terms like "secularism."PelleSmith 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Secularism a religion?

discuss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.3.143 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Is vegetarianism a meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.67.2 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Secularism a religion? Reply

Sounds like reframing the context of Secularism, does secularism worship a god/deity of any sort? No, then it is no. Religions are characterized by the obedience to an external authority, in the form of writings (Bible/Kuran) or divine revelation mediated often through a human agent for the followers obey. Cross fingers you can trust that person.

--220.239.179.128 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question, and although not considered as a mainstream religion, many groups, ideologies and politics have their gods. So the answer could be 'yes' in some respects.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A transcendent authority (which is what the above reply refers to) does not have to stem from a "being", and certainly not from a being that takes the obvious form of a deity. Also, a religion does not need to maintain an authority that is obviously transcendent, or that is transcendent in every sense of the term. On top of this you may be interested in the viewpoint (which I am not a supporter of personally) coming from some religious quarters that Secularism is in fact a religion--though at times this may be more of a rhetorical strategy than a substantive claim and at other times "Secular Humanism" is specifically targeted instead of a broader Secularism. A quick Google search will turn up hits, as will a search of Christian affiliated publications, even academic ones. It should be noted that the identity of "Secular Humanism" as a religion of sorts does not simply come from outside of the movement.PelleSmith (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My use of the word 'gods' should be taken loosely. Mother Earth, Mother Nature, that sort of thing could represent the authority which govern a group's objectives.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so there isn't any confusion, I was responding to the initial post which is a response to another just above it, but yes I understood that your (Founder's Intent) use of "gods" was not strictly relating to deities.  :) PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think secularism is not a religion, nor is it denial of religion. The definition (first lne of article) states Secularism is generally the assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief.

In other words secularism says that there is no problem with religion in itself, but that some (not even all) practices/institutions should exist apart from religion. To some extent I think most people agree with that; we go to a mechanic to mend our car, not to a priest; and we would be very disappointed if the mechanic tries to fix our car through prayer alone. We don't mind if our mechanic is a religious person, actually we maybe relgious ourselves, but this should not matter for car-repair. Ok this maybe a far fetched example but it shows that for certain practices everyone agrees they should be separate from religion; and that is the basics behind secularism.

Of course we do not call this secularism, we reserve that for more complex issues; for example whether law and government should be influenced by religion. But wanting to separate that has not necessarily anything to do with the religion of any of the people involved. Hence secularism can not be a religion, as it makes no claims about deity's and other relgions. Arnoutf (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Secularism has nothing to do with theology; it's concerned with the here and now, not with transcendental issues like the existence or nature of God. All it is is a formula for how people of different religious viewpoints (atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, deists and believers of various faiths) can exist side by side in the same society. Best summed up in the first amendment; "Congress (the government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Translation; we (the government and the law) won't place your religion above anyone else's, nor place anyone else's above yours. We won't interfere with your right to worship as you see fit, nor allow you to interfere with other people's right to worship as they see fit. Secularists themselves hold as many beliefs as there are religions - I myself am a secularist and a Catholic, and see no contradiction therein.

There have, however, been numerous attempts to paint secularism as something other than what it is, because some believers view it as a great blasphemy to place their religion on an equal footing with others, rather than accept their obvious superiority and rightness. Been there before, will go there again, sadly. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Responses to Religious Allegations"

Shouldn't the whole section be removed? I don't think the Wicca-themed section is relevant to the article. Dylan Stafne (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, even if it is to be mentioned it is not an important section, so at least it should be moved to the far end of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what on earth that section has to do with secularasm, so I'm going to go ahead and revert ClueBot's reversion of Dylan Stafne's reversion (:-)), and report it as a false positive. Golwengaud (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Norway

Norway is a secular nation. Who on earth thinks its non secular? To list Norway as red together with countries such as Saudi Arabia is misleading Nastykermit (talk)

The map is of those countries who have a state church. The Church of Norway is one. Arnoutf (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Last religious war

There must be a section on the last religious wars in Europe (16th c?). Are UK and Ireland secular? Then why is North Ireland split on religious lines? Anwar (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. Was the Dutch revolt or the Hugenots issue a religious war? UK is only partially secular as it has an official state religion (Anglican church) of which the head of state is the official leader. On the other hand, the laws themselves tend not to be based on religion, and allow religious freedom. But how relevant is this all? Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

These are complicated questions - the Republic of Ireland has a secular constitution, but some are not happy with the vast majority of schools being run by religious organisations. Northern Ireland is complicated for different reasons - the Unionists (traditional ruling classes) tended to be of various Protestant denominations, as opposed to Nationalists (mostly Catholics). However, religion works (partly) as a sign of ethnic division in the North - the Unionist/Nationalist divide is another. True, much of the divide is along religious lines, but there is also the question of colonialism. In the UK, certain bishops can sit in the House of Lords. Autarch (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Secularism, pluralism, atheism

I'd like to see an expert add a section on the relationships between secularism and religious toleration, multiculturalism and political pluralism. A contrast with state atheism might also be in order. –Gerrit Erasmus (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Freemasons

It seems terribly obvious to so many people that Freemasons have been major promoters of Secularism. If valid sources can be found, it should certainly be added. ADM (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this obvious? And why is it relevant to add, isn't it undue attention to a relatively minor movement? Arnoutf (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Secularism and Incarnation

One of the philosophical reasons I think Christians and their Churches have historically been opposed to Secularism is because of the religious dogma of the Incarnation. Christianity is the only religion with this particular dogma and it is often called the religion of the Incarnation. On the contrary, Jews, Muslims and Hindu/Buddhists do not have such a dogma, and therefore it is much easier to them to adhere to religious Monism, the belief in an Unknowable One, which is epistemologically very close to Secularism. For Christians to believe that Jesus is the One is, for many religions and philosophies, tantamount to denying the entire system of pluralism and secularism. There has been an ongoing dialogue on this issue since the 1970s, it needs to be featured more prominently and with relevant sources. ADM (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, do it then. Nick Graves (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Secular camp

In politics, the expression secular camp is sometimes used to describe those politicians and citizens who are strong supporters of secularism. Depending on the country, it is usually estimated at 40-50 % of the population in places like France, Turkey, Spain, Israel or Italy. ADM (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

State/Church Separation AND philosophical life stance: difference unclear

Hi all,

given that Secularism is not only "the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs" - as lapidary stated at the very beginning of the article, but also a philosophical life stance with its ethics and principles (very close to modern humanism) as rightly mentioned later on, I feel that the article should be clearer on the distinction and more organically organized thereby.
The very first sentence seems too restrictive to me, and kind of an 'absolute', while the philosopical part appears here and there like casually thrown in. That is a bit confusing to me, and not up to Wp standards.

Anyone else shares this opinion? Should the article be revised in this sense?
Cheers,
Silver 22.48 04/04/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.205.47 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that two articles are warranted, as there are two major meanings for the word: that used by its coiner and those in the secularist (humanist, atheist, etc.) movement today; and the meaning that refers to belief in church/state separation. One can be secularist in one sense (believing in church/state separation), while not a secularist in the other (a nonbeliever in the supernatural). Perhaps the articles could be Secularism (lifestance) and Secularism (political view). Now, do I personally want to put forth the effort of splitting the article? Meh. Nick Graves (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Marxist secularism

I think there should probably be an additional commentary on Marxist secularism, i.e. on Marxist interpretations of Church-State separation. Communist countries have often been refered to as atheistic in the Western press, but at home, they considered themselves to be merely secular states, secular states that applied Marxist ideology in public life. During the 1980s, as opposed to the two-way model that currently exists between the United States and France, there was often a third-way model of secularism that was promoted in the Eastern bloc states and in the Soviet Union, which asserted the primacy of the State in all matters public, and considered religion to be a negative influence that was to be relegated to the private sphere, along with other undesirables such as capitalism. ADM (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Should Einstein be mentioned in the lead?

I noticed someone removing a reference to Albert Einstein from the lead of the entry (on erroneous grounds since he seems to have been a self-professed agnostic). Another editor reverted the removal, but I'm now questioning the addition of Einstein myself on other grounds. Here is the relevant content:

• Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus, Enlightenment thinkers like Denis Diderot, Voltaire, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, and modern freethinkers, agnostics and atheists such as Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, Albert Einstein, and Richard Dawkins.

Does secularism in fact have "intellectual roots" in modern agnostics like Albert Einstein? Really? Can someone back this up? Russell, Ingersoll and Dawkins certainly devoted time and attention to the issue of religion, and belief in god, but Einstein just happened to be an agnostic. Let's not misuse his fame and imply something more than that. I would also question the inclusion of Dawkins here. Dawkins has certainly been influential in the last few years amongst atheists, but this article is about secularism and not atheism. How does modern secularism have its "roots" in the writings of a very contemporary atheist? This seems to imply something else that I don't believe is true nor verifiable through reliable sources.PelleSmith (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Secularity merge

The Secularity article has been changed to be a redirect to Secularism (in my opinion, that is a good idea since one encyclopedic article should be sufficient). Please see the version just before the article was made a redirect here. Perhaps there is some information from that page which would be useful here (if copy/pasting text in, please remember the WP:GFDL and include "copied from Secularity" (copied from [[Secularity]]) in the edit summary). Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No merge necessary as the two concepts are distinct. The redirect should have been discussed first, and indeed this ground has been coverd in the past already. Also please note that secularity is a noun despite what the faulty redirect rationale stated.PelleSmith (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for and Against section

Okay, I went through the whole thing because it is a mess. Perhaps needless to say, but not only is this section completely unsourced, it is also poorly organized, careless, and appears POV with its use of terms such as "atheist government" and "liberal" in association with secularism (which is clearly Americentric), a popular but false association of Marxism with anti-religion, and unsubstantiated connections between events without any sourced documentation.

(1) Statement: Opponents argue that secular government creates more problems than it solves, and that a government with a religious (or at least not a secular) ethos is better.

Who argues this? I know there are people who make that argument or something like it, so where is the reference?

(2) Statement: Some Christian opponents contend that a Christian state can give more freedom of religion than a secular one.

What Christian opponents make the argument in the first sentence? Reference!

(3) Statement: …and yet also recognized as more progressive and liberal than some countries without such a link." and "…Iceland was among the first countries to legalise contraceptives and abortion…

Who 'recognizes these countries' as more 'progressive and liberal'? Why is being more 'progressive and liberal' even relevant? It doesn't seem to me, especially without a reference, that thinkers and proponents of secularism are concerned with being more 'progressive and liberal' than a country with an established church. Moreover, how is the legalization of abortion and contraceptives related to secularism? Again, without a link, nothing in this article indicates that that is somehow an end goal of a secular state; and, without a reference, it cannot be assumed that the legalization of such things is necessarily 'liberal' or 'progressive' or that liberal and progressive is a positive argument for secularism. Which brings me to my next point, assuming the term liberal is being used in its American application, the use of such a term is Americentric and should not be used when discussing a non-US specific subject.

(4) Statement: Some cite the counterexample of the Netherlands and, more recently, Sweden, it being both a secular state and socio-politically progressive although having disestablished its state church in 2000.

Again, WHO cites the Netherlands and Sweden as examples? Moreover, who cares? I ask this because the fact that opponents cite these countries is irrelevant if it doesn't explain why they cite them. This statement alone has no value.

(5) Statement: Some modern commentators have criticized secularism by conflating it with anti-religious, atheistic, or even Satanic belief systems. The word secularism itself is commonly used as a pejorative by religious conservatives in the United States.

Which modern commentators? Who documented the use of the word "secularism" as a pejorative by religious conservatives?

(6) Statement: Pope Benedict XVI has declared ongoing secularization to be a fundamental problem of modern society, and has made it the goal of his papacy to counteract secularism and moral relativism.

Where is it documented that the Pope made this declaration? Is that what he said? I don't know! No reference!

(7) Statement: Though the goal of a secularist state is to be religiously neutral, some argue that it is repressive of some aspects of religion. Ostensibly, it is equally repressive toward all religions in order to equally protect all from interference by others.

Who argue it is repressive? Who or where is the argument that it is equally repressive toward all religions?

(8) Statement: William E. Connolly, a noted opponent of secularism, writes, "Secularism is not merely the division between public and private realms that allows religious diversity to flourish in the latter. It can itself be a carrier of harsh exclusions. And it secretes a new definition of "religion" that conceals some of its most problematic practices from itself."

Where did Connolly say this? What page?

(9) Statement: Some political philosophies, such as Marxism, generally hold that any religious influence in a state or society is negative. In nations that have officially embraced such beliefs, such as the former Eastern European Communist Bloc countries, the religious institution was made subject to the atheist state, in the public interest. Freedom to worship was subject to licensure and other restrictions, and the doctrine of the church was monitored to assure conformity to secular law, or even the official public philosophy.

First, it is patently false that Marxism generally holds that "any religious influence in a state or society is negative," there are Christian Marxists and various forms of religious Marxism. Note, there is a distinction between Marxism and historically famous communist societies; Lenin's (and many subsequent) adaptation of communism was anti-religious, Marx does not even include religion in his theories on communism. Secondly, 'atheist' is incorrectly used to describe countries that ban religion, except in cases where the nation formally adopts and endorses the idea that there are no gods; in all other cases, the country has simply 'barred religion' or is 'non-religious.' Also, references?

(10) Statement: Ironically, although this was done to ensure public safety and stability, these governments often also used atrocities to maintain their power; events such as the Great Purge, the Cultural Revolution, and the actions of the Khmer Rouge are among many examples cited against the moral viability of purely atheist governments. In the Western democracies, it is generally agreed that these policies contravened full freedom of religion.

It isn't the job of the editor to point out the "irony" in the narrative relationship of historical events. More importantly, WHERE ARE THE SOURCES FOR ANY OF THIS? I mean, that 'religion was barred to ensure public safety and stability' is neither accurate nor sourced, and there is no source present that suggests that the 'atrocities' committed by secular or nonreligious countries had any immediate relationship with 'maintaining power' or maintaining a non-religious state; moreover, what does 'maintaining power' have to do with secularism or barring religion? We might be able to find out if there were any sources! Then, out of nowhere, for whatever reason the narrative turns onto the moral viability of atheist governments. I don't know about anyone else, but when did the 'moral viability of atheist governments' become part of the narrative? No where does it state that 'moral viability' is a topic of criticism in the narrative, much less is there any reliable source that notes a causal relationship between the events listed and the fact that religion was barred in their respective countries.

This section needs to be reworked entirely, because there is considerable philosophical debate about secularism and it should be explicated accurately and verifiably. Let me know what you guys think Treefingers1206 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)