Do the religious understand secular mindsets?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So... I was listening to a radio show on my way home recently:

The Myth of the Secular, Part 1 - Home | Ideas with Paul Kennedy | CBC Radio

It was a bit frustrating to listen to listen to these people who had written actual books about secularism describe secularism in ways that bore little to no resemblance to my beliefs, values, and viewpoint as a secular person.

So... those of you who disagree with secularism: do you think you understand the secular point of view? If so, can you describe it?

 

[Deathbydefault]

"God's word is law".
I've asked the question you're asking now.
The response I got is in the above quoted text.
Then when I questioned that too they would normally say,
"Any law that is not with God is against God".

Then again that was two years ago and from my highly Christian community.
I didn't really expect different, but I do like to gather my own statistics.
I'm sure we can find someone in this thread pretty soon spouting that same crap.
However, most of the people that deny secularism are extremely religious.
So I suppose the majority wont "deny" it more so than "disagree" with it.

I have made my predictions and now I wait.

 

[Marisa]

"Any law that is not with God is against God".

Didn't George Bush say something like that right before we invaded Iraq?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Didn't George Bush say something like that right before we invaded Iraq?

Indeed.
He was not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Do you know about the time he tried to make his lawyer a supreme court justice?
Re-read second line of post.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Do the religious understand secular mindsets?

I would certainly hope so. Since many religious individuals, such as myself, also identify as secular and value their secular beliefs as much as their religious ones.

 

[Quintessence]

Having observed how self-identified secularists describe secularism, it doesn't seem to me that there's a monolithic, agreed-upon dogma that they all adhere to in terms of their point of view. As such, should it really be surprising if, as a secularist, one hears descriptions of secularism one doesn't agree with? Don't we get that kind of thing going on with any term that more than one person lays claim to? You get people disagreeing with each other about what that identifier means, even within the self-affiliated demographic. Not convinced we can pin down "a" secularism as opposed to secluarisms.

With respect to secularisms (plural), I've seen it two distinct flavors, sung of by people who self-identify as such and by those who do not. I've seen it interpreted (more accurately, IMHO) as true neutrality when it comes to matters of religion, particularly in the context of governance and legal affairs. That spin on secularism - the "freedom of" take - I have no problem with whatsoever. I've also seen it interpreted, however, in a fashion that is thinly-veiled (or overtly) anti-religion. There, it often reaches beyond simply consideration of governance and legal affairs. That spin on secularism - the "freedom from" take - I have serious reservations about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would certainly hope so. Since many religious individuals, such as myself, also identify as secular and value their secular beliefs as much as their religious ones.

I probably misspoke by using "religious" in my title. "The anti-secular" or "opponents of secularism" would probably me more accurate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having observed how self-identified secularists describe secularism, it doesn't seem to me that there's a monolithic, agreed-upon dogma that they all adhere to in terms of their point of view. As such, should it really be surprising if, as a secularist, one hears descriptions of secularism one doesn't agree with?

Some of the descriptions don't bear any resemblance to any real secularist I've ever met. I would also hope that someone who purports to be an expert on secularism and is publishing books about it would take the time to gauge the secular community and find out which views are common and which ones are fringe.

I'll have to re-listen to the episode to get exact quotes, but some of the views that were expressed were these:

- secularism argues that religion is inherently irrational and therefore shouldn't be debated in public.

- secularists believe that all religion can be reduced to a set of truth claims.

- secularism only responds to "religion", so it has nothing to say about faiths without set doctrine, clear communities of believers, or scripture.

- "religion" did not exist as a concept before it emerged in the 1500s-1600s in Europe. Before then, there was just one's "way of life".

 

[Marisa]

Having observed how self-identified secularists describe secularism, it doesn't seem to me that there's a monolithic, agreed-upon dogma that they all adhere to in terms of their point of view. As such, should it really be surprising if, as a secularist, one hears descriptions of secularism one doesn't agree with? Don't we get that kind of thing going on with any term that more than one person lays claim to? You get people disagreeing with each other about what that identifier means, even within the self-affiliated demographic. Not convinced we can pin down "a" secularism as opposed to secluarisms.

With respect to secularisms (plural), I've seen it two distinct flavors, sung of by people who self-identify as such and by those who do not. I've seen it interpreted (more accurately, IMHO) as true neutrality when it comes to matters of religion, particularly in the context of governance and legal affairs. That spin on secularism - the "freedom of" take - I have no problem with whatsoever. I've also seen it interpreted, however, in a fashion that is thinly-veiled (or overtly) anti-religion. There, it often reaches beyond simply consideration of governance and legal affairs. That spin on secularism - the "freedom from" take - I have serious reservations about.

I mostly agree with what you're saying except that I would suggest that one can't be free to practice a specific religion without the explicit exemption from being required to practice all/any other religion(s). So freedom "of" religion necessitates and implies the freedom "from" religion.

In terms of secularism being ill defined, I would love to hear your experiences with the many definitions. As for myself I'm constantly shocked when I bump into a secularist who doesn't also self identify as a humanist. To me, humanism is a "duh" thing, but I do run into those who ascribe to a "rights are for those who can afford them" mentality on both sides of the religion divide.

 

[Marisa]

Some of the descriptions don't bear any resemblance to any real secularist I've ever met. I would also hope that someone who purports to be an expert on secularism and is publishing books about it would take the time to gauge the secular community and find out which views are common and which ones are fringe.

I'll have to re-listen to the episode to get exact quotes, but some of the views that were expressed were these:

- secularism argues that religion is inherently irrational and therefore shouldn't be debated in public.

- secularists believe that all religion can be reduced to a set of truth claims.

- secularism only responds to "religion", so it has nothing to say about faiths without set doctrine, clear communities of believers, or scripture.

- "religion" did not exist as a concept before it emerged in the 1500s-1600s in Europe. Before then, there was just one's "way of life".

To me, secularism is extremely simple: I don't want any laws based on any religious tenet, and I'd love to see houses of worship support their communities the same way we all do, through taxes. I have no desire to rid the world of religion. I don't even think that's an achievable goal. I don't want to push the religious out of the public square, I just want to limit sentences that start with "my belief says you can't ______________".

 

[Iti oj]

Some of the descriptions don't bear any resemblance to any real secularist I've ever met. I would also hope that someone who purports to be an expert on secularism and is publishing books about it would take the time to gauge the secular community and find out which views are common and which ones are fringe.

I'll have to re-listen to the episode to get exact quotes, but some of the views that were expressed were these:

- secularism argues that religion is inherently irrational and therefore shouldn't be debated in public.

- secularists believe that all religion can be reduced to a set of truth claims.

- secularism only responds to "religion", so it has nothing to say about faiths without set doctrine, clear communities of believers, or scripture.

- "religion" did not exist as a concept before it emerged in the 1500s-1600s in Europe. Before then, there was just one's "way of life".

none of that holds true wtf?

 

[StarryNightshade]

Some of the descriptions don't bear any resemblance to any real secularist I've ever met. I would also hope that someone who purports to be an expert on secularism and is publishing books about it would take the time to gauge the secular community and find out which views are common and which ones are fringe.

I'll have to re-listen to the episode to get exact quotes, but some of the views that were expressed were these:

- secularism argues that religion is inherently irrational and therefore shouldn't be debated in public.

- secularists believe that all religion can be reduced to a set of truth claims.

- secularism only responds to "religion", so it has nothing to say about faiths without set doctrine, clear communities of believers, or scripture.

- "religion" did not exist as a concept before it emerged in the 1500s-1600s in Europe. Before then, there was just one's "way of life".

I've never heard of anyone claiming that any of the aforementioned is what "secularism" is. All it really means is that the government's laws should not be dictated by religious mores. Complete separation of church and state, which I whole heartedly support.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've never heard of anyone claiming that any of the aforementioned is what "secularism" is.

I have before, but only ever from religious commentators.

All it really means is that the government's laws should not be dictated by religious mores. Complete separation of church and state, which I whole heartedly support.

I have a different take on it, but I think it ends up at pretty much the same thing: I think religion should get no special regard, good or bad. If someone wants to bring religious ideas into the public sphere, that's fine... but with two important caveats: if you bring them forward, they're fair game for criticism, and religious beliefs aren't exempt from the general principle that governmental rules and restrictions on freedom need clear, rational justification to be legitimate... which religious laws usually lack.

... but if someone shows me some good, independently justifiable idea that has a religious source, it's welcome at the party, IMO. I'm a strong advocate of stealing good ideas from anywhere.

 

[George-ananda]

I just take 'secular' to mean non-religious. Beyond that it says nothing specific.

From Webster: : not spiritual : of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world

 

[ChristineES]

Since there are more than one kind of religious mindset, I would assume that there would be more than one type of secular mindset. That's all I want to add.

 

[Quintessence]

Some of the descriptions don't bear any resemblance to any real secularist I've ever met. I would also hope that someone who purports to be an expert on secularism and is publishing books about it would take the time to gauge the secular community and find out which views are common and which ones are fringe.

I'll have to re-listen to the episode to get exact quotes, but some of the views that were expressed were these:

- secularism argues that religion is inherently irrational and therefore shouldn't be debated in public.

- secularists believe that all religion can be reduced to a set of truth claims.

- secularism only responds to "religion", so it has nothing to say about faiths without set doctrine, clear communities of believers, or scripture.

- "religion" did not exist as a concept before it emerged in the 1500s-1600s in Europe. Before then, there was just one's "way of life".

Wuh?

I mostly agree with what you're saying except that I would suggest that one can't be free to practice a specific religion without the explicit exemption from being required to practice all/any other religion(s). So freedom "of" religion necessitates and implies the freedom "from" religion.

With how I intend the two phrases to be understood, the one is not at all implied from the other. To clarify, when I make the distinction between "freedom of" and "freedom from" I basically mean the distinction between coexistence and banishment. "Freedom of" is tolerant and pluralist, "freedom from" is intolerant and exclusivist.

In terms of secularism being ill defined, I would love to hear your experiences with the many definitions.

I'd have to be more mindful about how I see the term being used in order to speak in better detail about that; it's not like I've been keeping a log. Mostly, I just have this awareness of how complicated the notion and enforcement of secularism (or perhaps "secularism") is in my country. There are times where it seems that true neutrality is actually being obtained, and other times where there is not neutrality going on, but banishment. I understand that there are abuses of free expression, but at the same time, I don't see banishment and prohibition as a viable solution either. It ends up favoring some groups over others just as much as the previous laws did. In particular, it favors unconventional expressions of religiosity or those that are poorly recognized by mainstream culture. In spite of the fact that I personally benefit from banishing of "religion" from public spaces, I don't like seeing it. It's not fair that I can continue to flagrantly display my religion in public spaces when conventional expressions of religion are banished.

As for myself I'm constantly shocked when I bump into a secularist who doesn't also self identify as a humanist. To me, humanism is a "duh" thing, but I do run into those who ascribe to a "rights are for those who can afford them" mentality on both sides of the religion divide.

Humanism means different things to different people. That is worth keeping in mind.

 

[Marisa]

Wuh?



With how I intend the two phrases to be understood, the one is not at all implied from the other. To clarify, when I make the distinction between "freedom of" and "freedom from" I basically mean the distinction between coexistence and banishment. "Freedom of" is tolerant and pluralist, "freedom from" is intolerant and exclusivist.



I'd have to be more mindful about how I see the term being used in order to speak in better detail about that; it's not like I've been keeping a log. Mostly, I just have this awareness of how complicated the notion and enforcement of secularism (or perhaps "secularism") is in my country. There are times where it seems that true neutrality is actually being obtained, and other times where there is not neutrality going on, but banishment. I understand that there are abuses of free expression, but at the same time, I don't see banishment and prohibition as a viable solution either. It ends up favoring some groups over others just as much as the previous laws did. In particular, it favors unconventional expressions of religiosity or those that are poorly recognized by mainstream culture. In spite of the fact that I personally benefit from banishing of "religion" from public spaces, I don't like seeing it. It's not fair that I can continue to flagrantly display my religion in public spaces when conventional expressions of religion are banished.



Humanism means different things to different people. That is worth keeping in mind.

I can't easily break things down on my iPad so please forgive.

I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think it's intolerant to not want to be forced to attend a worship service for a faith you don't possess. I also don't think it's exclusionist to expect that in a government building the business of the day is the people's business, not the christian people's business or the hindu people's business or the jewish people's business. In other words, if folks want to pray before conducting their business I have no problem with that, but they shouldn't expect that the people's business can't get started without that prayer or that all should participate or wait patiently for those who do. That should be taken care of before taking one's seat at the people's table.

I don't mean to banish religion from the public square, but secularism does demand that it not be welcome in some venues. If you want to stand on the courthouse steps and pray, I'm not going to bother you. But once we get indoors, it should not be on the agenda.

 

[Yerda]

I just take 'secular' to mean non-religious. Beyond that it says nothing specific.

Not exactly.

See: National Secular Society - What is Secularism?

 

[George-ananda]

Not exactly.

See: National Secular Society - What is Secularism?

As it is presented there, it would be hard to argue against Secularism. I myself support Secularism as I believe almost all people do support it in the modern western world. It would just seem in only a few minor grey areas would differences of opinion occur on this.