Comments on: The Real Meaning of Secularism

By: Secular Dignity

Secular Dignity — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:37:05 +0000

There seems to be an interesting contradiction here in the USA. The people who talk the loudest about freedom are the quickest to condemn you if you do, say or think something they do not like.

By: Milena

Milena — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:09:03 +0000

That’s why I’m going with “kitten-eating God-hater”. I’d like to see the windbag O’Reilly spin that one!

Why kittens, though? Are you in an area where babies are hard to find? Sucks to be you, Siamang.

I’m pretty adamant about calling myself an atheist, too. I feel like secularist might be used a bit too often as a synonym for atheist, when it isn’t, and that takes away secularism’s own meaning and demonizes in the eyes of the Religious Right. I’d rather separate the misconceptions fundies have of atheists from their apparent fear of the separation of Chirch and State. It seems like it’d be easier to deal with.

By: Siamang

Siamang — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:37:15 +0000

Stand your ground with the term that best describes you and make no apologies.

That’s why I’m going with “kitten-eating God-hater”. I’d like to see the windbag O’Reilly spin that one!

By: Old Mormon Guy

Old Mormon Guy — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:19:18 +0000

Hemant: Thank you for this little essay. I agree with you, and I also like the verbage suggested by BZ, ‘non-religious’ when referring to anyone that prefers to be an atheist, agnostic, etc. I am 76 and have been a life long participant in the Mormon church and have always been taught there to avoid labels so far as possible, and try to understand other religious and non-religious positions, avoiding any condemnation. I respect you as an atheist. I hope you also respect me as I practice my faith. When you say that no group is more reviled than atheists, I wonder how well you understand the Mormon history? I know we both (atheists and Mormons) get some really bad press from evangelical pulpits. Has any atheist group ever had an extermination order issued against them by a Governor of any state, as was issued against Mormons by Govern Lilburn Boggs of Missourri? I guess an answer isn’t really important. I think it may be easy for any group, like yours or mine, to commisurate in the face of opposition and feel that they have been selected for some special reviling?? Peace!

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:48:27 +0000

Epistaxis is right. This is why I call myself an atheist, to desensitize people (just about everyone) who have absorbed the negative connotation from the society around them. When I don’t live up to the evil stereotype their assumptions are weakened.

Euphamisms are futile and even self-defeating. The fasci-fundies will always demonize whatever name we use. Stand your ground with the term that best describes you and make no apologies.

By: BZ

BZ — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:43:37 +0000

Atheists shouldn’t use the word secular to mean people who aren’t religious. There’s a perfectly fine umbrella term for those all who aren’t religious, including agnostics and apathetics, etc. It is this: non-religious.

By: Karen

Karen — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:34:50 +0000

I recall the same thing, Donna. In my churches “secular humanist” was as dirty a term as “atheist,” in fact probably more so because we all were supposed to know actual secular humanists, whereas the only open atheists (back then) were Madalyn Murray O’Hare and her family.

It’s an interesting argument. What I think he’s saying is that he wishes more religious people identified themselves as secularists in the sense that they support a secular government and society. For instance, there are religious believers in Americans United for Church and State, but that’s certainly a secular organization.

By: Epistaxis

Epistaxis — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:10:44 +0000

I agree. If we let “secular” become a synonym for atheist, then we don’t have a word for secular. There are already enough people who confuse a religiously neutral government with one that actively oppresses religion, so how can they appreciate that most of us nonreligious folks actually prefer the former over the latter like they do?

But as you say, there aren’t any good umbrella euphemisms that describe both atheists and atheists who don’t like to call themselves atheists. Inventing a new word seemed like a great idea, but somehow it ended up sounding unnecessarily condescending (“Bright”). And making up a complementary label for everyone else is a bad compromise, even if it’s “Super.”

As much respect as I have for the Secular Student Alliance, the Secular Coalition for America, and the Harvard Secular Society, I think we need to reclaim “atheist” itself. Every time you simply call yourself an atheist (especially a Friendly one), it stops being a derogatory or accusatory word. If some of us use it without shame, others will be less afraid to do the same, and someday it won’t even need a qualifier like “self-professed” or “openly” in newspapers. I appreciate that not all atheists are Humanists like Greg, but the latter term should still only be used for specificity, not evasion. If we shy away from an inherently neutral word like “atheist,” we let it become just as charged as “heathen,” “heretic,” or “infidel.” We can’t work toward tolerance or respect if we’re embarrassed by our own name.

By: writerdd

writerdd — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:59:22 +0000

That’s nothing new. Secular was considered the equivalent of godless back in the 70s & 80s when I was going to church. They think humanist = satanist, too. Shrugh. Willful ignorance and misuse of words, I think. The sad thing is that kids are indoctrinated with this fear of anything secular or humanist.