Secularism is a religion

[lilithu]

Um... I found this article by clicking on one of the forum advertiser links. The ad said: "Secularism is a religion. Let's treat it as such."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/001/17.62.html

Sheesh... secularism is a religion and we Unitarian-Universalists can't even get tax exempt status in TX. We don't get no respect at all.

 

[michel]

Um... I found this article by clicking on one of the forum advertiser links. The ad said: "Secularism is a religion. Let's treat it as such."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/001/17.62.html


Sheesh... secularism is a religion and we Unitarian-Universalists can't even get tax exempt status in TX. We don't get no respect at all.

Hi lilithu, namaste.
Quote[For each element in the Judeo-Christian family of faiths, secularism has its counterpart: a strict ethical code, albeit focusing on health issues ("Thou shalt not smoke," etc.); the use of shame when individuals disregard ethical rules (e.g. fat people); a related promise of eternal life through medical advances; a creation story (Darwinian evolution); and so forth. All that's missing is a deity, but not every religion has one, as the case of Zen Buddhism attests.]

I share your incredulity at the site on 'Secularism'; whilst I always try to view the world and all people with a non-judgemental attitude, I find the above hard to stomach.

Breach of ethical rules - fat people?
Thou shalt not smoke?
a related promise of eternal life through medical advances?
I don't know wether to laugh or cry! Until 1993 I smoked 60 cigarettes a day (started young, when it was almost a social necessity); luckily, I found it remarkably easy to give up. I do not like the smell of smoke, but I would never condemn anyone who smokes; the only rule I make is 'Not in my house, please!'
I really do find all this incredible; and, dare I say it, dangerous.

 

[Pah]

Um... I found this article by clicking on one of the forum advertiser links. The ad said: "Secularism is a religion. Let's treat it as such."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/001/17.62.html

[/COLOR]

That poor fool hasn't even touched the depths of secular religion.

We have stealth denominations that encompass professional sports where the pew is frequently the livingroom couch and trendy missions extend to sport's bars. We have the cathederals of NASCAR and the Meadowlands. Teams have rosters of priests that suck youth (who rarely achieve desired priesthood) into "devious" practice and frequently become idols.

Wall Steet has it's own priesthood where indulgences are sold for "righteous" living. The MBA is awarded to the gifted pastor. Banks take the place of Churches and store sacred money, bonds, and gold. Counting those is religiously practised daily.

Interdenominational faith is seen in our corporations where greed is the dogma and the congregation holds shares. They "pray" upon the masses with their missions on Madison Ave.

I really don't have any respect for David Klinghoffer when he so blatantly misses the stronger secular faiths.

 

[Pah]

Complete Article and other links

From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.

January 18, 2005

That Other Church: Secularism As Religion?

Patrick Tomlinson wrote this letter to Christianity Today and kindly gave permission for me to reprint it here:



To whom it may concern,

I am responding to the column recently posted in your website titled "That Other Church". I found its content to be of a particularly uninformed nature. I did not consider it offensive; more that it was laughable due to the myriad of mistakes, baseless assumptions, and outright ignorant logical fallacies it contained. But instead of dragging on like this, let's dive into point by point examples of this particular author's foolishness and deception...

"Let's face it: Secularism is a religion. Let's treat it as such."

Okay, here's his subject line and right away he has made an error. To quote the Webster's English Dictionary;

"Main Entry: secïuïlarïism
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&-"ri-z&m
Function: noun
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations"

In a nutshell (not that such a short, simple definition should need to be condensed) the concept of secularism means the absence of religion. Period. The meaning of the word itself rejects the possibility of what the author claims. ...

I like how the author slips in the subtle insult against other major world religions at the beginning of this statement. Did you catch it? He singles out his preference for his own religious background and dismisses the rest, as if Judeo-Christian elements were the only true measure of what constitutes religion. The rest of the statement is just insipid. The examples given are all easily proven wrong. Let's start at the beginning. There is no "strict ethical code" of secular people. The absence of religion in their lives means they determine their own ethical code on an individual basis and have wildly differing ideas about right and wrong. Nor does smoking disqualify people from being secular. Many are smokers, many are not. The same is true of religious people. This example is completely without merit.

As for a "story of creation", his use of the "theory of evolution" is a poor choice. As is often the case, the author mistakenly believes that evolution tries or needs to explain the origins of life. Evolution speaks only about the development of life after it started. Secularists as a group have no specific creation myth. Many subscribe to scientific explanations of the origins of life and the universe, but many do not. Those who don't are still secular. Further, those who do side with scientific theories do so backed with mountains of physical observations and empirical evidence that has survived the test of falsifiability and peer review. These are not religious beliefs based on blind faith and exist outside of religion.

Besides, many people who identify themselves as Christians also believe in evolution. The Pope himself has stated on more than one occasion that evolution is perfectly compatible with Catholic beliefs. Is it the author's intention to suggest that the Pope is secular? As for the lack of a deity, he is similarly wrong. One can believe in a god or gods, but not belong to a religious community or practice any religious rituals. So far, the author hasn't been right about a single claim he has made. Let's explore further...

This one I find really astonishing. In the face of his secular opponent, the author tries to disenfranchise members of his own side and give them to the enemy! In so doing he commits a mistake known in logic and debate circles as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. This basically means that he's claiming anyone that doesn't fit his narrow idea of what constitutes a Jew or Christian cannot actually be a Jew or a Christian and must actually be a secularist, (a "devout" secularist no less). I thought judgment was reserved for his god. The statement is obviously as false as it is arrogant, because having a belief in the Judeo-Christian concept of god disqualifies them from being secular. He might as well claim that these people are also married bachelors.

.

Further, there is no scientific evidence critical of evolution. If it such evidence is ever found, only then would it be appropriate to teach in classes dedicated to science. Asking schools to teach unscientific religious doctrine to students in science class is as inappropriate as a secularist insisting that evolution be taught at Sunday school. Can anyone give examples of a secularist crusade to force science and evolution into bible study groups? I didn't think so. I think this reveals which side actually "use aggressive means in advancing their political age and spreading their faith." And we march on...

"The prejudice on behalf of the secular faith emanating from the media is likewise hard to ignore. HBO's Bill Maher, raised Catholic but later converted to a harsh secularism, is among the frankest of news and entertainment industry figures in his contempt for competing religions, notably Christianity. The host of Real Time with Bill Maher speaks of himself as "spreading the anti-gospel."

Has anybody seen "The O'Reilly Factor" or "The 700 Club" with Pat Robertson? The best he has to offer in defense of his ascertation that the media is seething with secular programming is Bill Maher who nobody watches? Even the most liberal shows aren't purely secular. Take "The Daily Show" hosted by fellow Jew Jon Stewart. Maybe Mr. Stewart is one of those closet "devout secularists" he mentioned before...

Secularism is the starting point for all people, only after being indoctrinated by parents and religious leaders do they become religious themselves. So a legitimate argument could be made that "conversion" is strictly a religious activity (and not all religions see the need to find converts, Judaism and Buddhism come to mind). He is also again guilty of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. In attacking the Anti-Defamation League, he again dismisses a group of religious people because they do not fit with his idea of proper Judaism. In this case, he reveals his bigotry for homosexuals, because no "true" Jewish group could possibly support the rights of gays to be treated equally.

 

[lilithu]

That poor fool hasn't even touched the depths of secular religion.

We have stealth denominations that encompass professional sports where the pew is frequently the livingroom couch and trendy missions extend to sport's bars. We have the cathederals of NASCAR and the Meadowlands. Teams have rosters of priests that suck youth (who rarely achieve desired priesthood) into "devious" practice and frequently become idols.

Wall Steet has it's own priesthood where indulgences are sold for "righteous" living. The MBA is awarded to the gifted pastor. Banks take the place of Churches and store sacred money, bonds, and gold. Counting those is religiously practised daily.

Interdenominational faith is seen in our corporations where greed is the dogma and the congregation holds shares. They "pray" upon the masses with their missions on Madison Ave.

I really don't have any respect for David Klinghoffer when he so blatantly misses the stronger secular faiths.

Agree completely. Guess he didn't learn anything from the story of the golden calf. Anyone else read Neil Gaiman's American Gods?