What Does Secular Mean?

[rug]

April 27, 2015
Posted by Jack Vance at 5:16 AM

Despite widespread confusion, secularism is not synonymous with atheism. So what is secularism? The National Secular Society explains it quite well when they note that secularism "is a principle that involves two basic propositions." The two propositions are as follows:

1.There must be strict separation between church and state, and
2.People of various religious beliefs (including those with no religious beliefs at all) must be equal under the law
.
Right. So secularism is about the separation of church and state. Someone advocating secularism is seeking government neutrality on matters of religion. One can be a religious believer and support secularism. And fortunately, many religious believers do so. They recognize that secularism is good for them too.

Where things get tricky is when we stop talking about the principle of secularism and start talking about people. When a person identifies himself or herself as "secular," he or she may be communicating one of at least two fairly different things. First, identifying oneself as secular may mean that one supports secularism as defined above. That is, I advocate secularism and therefore identify myself as being secular. As noted above, this does not necessarily mean that I am not a religious believer. Second, identifying oneself as secular may mean that one is not religious. Used this way, someone could be non-religious but support state intervention aimed at eradicating religion, which would hardly be consistent with secularism.

In my experience, "secular" is most often used by people to describe themselves or others as non-religious. Thus, one often hears the term used to describe atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and anyone else we might characterize as non-religious. But this is an interesting case where different uses of "secular" and "secularism" can lead to some confusion. Just because someone identifies as secular does not necessarily mean that he or she supports separation of church and state. And just because someone identifies as secular does not necessarily mean that he or she is not religious.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2015/04/what-does-secular-mean.html

[cbayer]

1. Unfortunately, I think this horse is out of the barn.

At one time, I tried to reinforce the distinction between secularism and non-belief, but it has been a losing battle.

As he notes, the word now is used extensively to describe the non-religious. As has been noted, the term "atheist" comes with a lot of baggage and people are seeking other terms that will not cause negative knee jerk reactions.

So maybe the general meaning of secular should be non-religious. I'm at a loss to think of other words.

[rug]

2. Only in some echo chambers is secular conflated with nonbelief or atheism.

After all, atheism is no more than nonbelief. It is mute on anything else, including political issues, of which separation, or non-separation, of state and religion is one.

The Reverend Barry Lynn, along with Jack Vance, know exactly what secularism means.

https://www.au.org/

[cbayer]

3. I'm not so sure. There was recently a "secular coming out day"

and it was clearly aimed at non-believers coming out to someone who didn't know that about them.

I agree with the definition that Lynn and Vance hold, but the word is being frequently used to mean something quite different and I'm not sure that can be stopped.

Any ideas for a better term to describe non-believers in general? Maybe just non-believers?

[rug]

4. Political wars start with the seizibg of words, then arsenals.

Can you think of why atheists or nonbelievers would want to do that?

Standing around saying, "I have no belief" doesn't gain any traction, support, members, or momentum.

[cbayer]

5. Worse than that, I think the word atheist comes with a lot of negative baggage.

If non-belief is to become normalized, which I strongly support, then we need some words that don't lead others to think negatively.

I don't see a war between belief and non-belief, except in these little corners of the internet. And I think these little corners are really irrelevant when it comes down to it.

[Lordquinton]

25. That is interesting logic you've got there

You scared that homosexuals everywhere are gonna lead an armed rebellion against your homophobic oppressor of a church? After all, they did seize the word "gay"

[rug]

29. Well, Lord, let's hear it. Very clearly now. Are you calling me a homophobe?

[Jim__]

6. If enough people use it to mean "non-religious" - then that becomes a valid use.

It does not invalidate the meaning of separation of church and state, but it does introduce an ambiguity into the meaning of the word.

[cbayer]

7. And I think that is exactly what is happening and it's

too late to reverse that trend.

[rug]

8. Creating ambiguity is a common tactic to disguise all sorts of things.

But, secular does mean non-religious - in civic affairs. It doesn't mean non-belief any more than Democrat does.

[Jim__]

9. If enough people use it that way - to mean non-belief - then it becomes a valid use.

For a large number of cases, the meaning of a word is its use in language. Secular is probably one of those cases.

[TM99]

26. No, really that isn't how it works.

Secularism and secular already have very well-defined meanings that have zero to do with belief or non-belief in any type of religious dogma.

You are certainly free to abuse the language but don't be surprised if there is push back, dismissal, and other such responses in reply.

[Jim__]

27. Yes, that's exactly how language works.

Usage determines meaning.

From merriam-webster (my bolding):

How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?

...

The answer is simple: usage.

To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.

Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms–in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage. Any word of interest is marked, along with surrounding context that offers insight into its form and use.

[TM99]

30. Try again.

You do realize that it is not a group of individuals on the internet that makes that happen.

A committee of scholars and linguists will make that determination over time.

Your use of the word secular as non-belief is hardly there yet. And hopefully never will be!

[Jim__]

35. Guess again. Only next time try reading before guessing.

My use of the word secular? How do I use the word secular? And how would you know? My posts stated a simple fact: if enough people use it that way - to mean non-belief - then it becomes a valid use. A fact supported by my citation.

[TM99]

36. I can read just fine.

At best, in time, it may become a very secondary meaning of the word only used in colloquial discussions. It will never 'change' or displace the primary definition that has been used and will continue to be used by English speaking people the world over.

Your arrogance is truly astounding!

[Jim__]

38. Really? Where did you read anything about my use of the word secular?

My arrogance? Once again try reading what's been posted. You state:

At best, in time, it may become a very secondary meaning of the word only used in colloquial discussions. It will never 'change' or displace the primary definition that has been used and will continue to be used by English speaking people the world over.

And what I explicitly stated in post #6:

If enough people use it to mean "non-religious" - then that becomes a valid use.

It does not invalidate the meaning of separation of church and state, but it does introduce an ambiguity into the meaning of the word.

[TM99]

39. It does not introduce an ambiguity.

Secular will always mean what it has meant, even if (and this is not yet a reality) a tertiary meaning arises having to do with new atheists not wanting to use the term atheist.

So yes, I can read quite well, every one of your words. I am addressing you concept of 'ambiguity' which is simply wrong.

I am done with you.

[Jim__]

40. Let me try to unwind your changing claims.

From your post #26 - your first post in response to me:

Secularism and secular already have very well-defined meanings that have zero to do with belief or non-belief in any type of religious dogma.

You are certainly free to abuse the language but don't be surprised if there is push back, dismissal, and other such responses in reply.

So, you accuse me of abusing the language. Am I abusing the language with respect to the words secular and/or secularism or the word ambiguity ? I note that you haven't said anything about ambiguity yet.

And then from post #30, your second response to me:

You do realize that it is not a group of individuals on the internet that makes that happen.

A committee of scholars and linguists will make that determination over time.

Your use of the word secular as non-belief is hardly there yet. And hopefully never will be!

So, are you referring to my concept of ambiguity here?

And now in your post #39:

It does not introduce an ambiguity.

Secular will always mean what it has meant, even if (and this is not yet a reality) a tertiary meaning arises having to do with new atheists not wanting to use the term atheist.

So yes, I can read quite well, every one of your words. I am addressing you concept of 'ambiguity' which is simply wrong.

I am done with you.

So, are you now claiming that in posts #26 and 30 you were referring to my concept of ambiguity? Even though both posts explicitly referenced the word secular and neither made any reference to ambiguity, either as a word or concept? Is that really the story you want to go with? It doesn't fool anybody. And, it doesn't do a lot for your credibility.

As to your new claim about my concept of ambiguity, let's look at Merriam-Webster again:

Full Definition of AMBIGUITY
1
a : the quality or state of being ambiguous especially in meaning (see ambiguous)
b : a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression

...

Now you are claiming (your post #39) that even if secular has a tertiary meaning, my claim that this tertiary meaning introduces an ambiguity - a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways (Merriam-Webster) - my concept of ambiguity is simply wrong? Really? It seems that your latest claim is no more valid than your previous claims.

[TM99]

41. Wow, you are something else.

This sub-thread started with the idea put forth by Rug of ambiguity as method of manipulation.

And damn, he was right. This post is a perfect example.

Welcome to Ignore.

[Jim__]

42. You said nothing about ambiguity until post #39.

And your claim about the concept of ambiguity in post #39 has also been debunked - see my post #40.

As to putting me on ignore, that's a good idea, at least until you can keep up.

[cbayer]

28. Eventually, though, language purists have to give in.

After they have pushed back and dismissed, and a word continues to take on a new meaning, there comes the moment when you just cry uncle.

I have long argued for the proper use of the term secular, but I concede at this point.

"Openly Secular Day" was a positive event, imo, even if they technically misused the word.

[TM99]

31. Purist must cede?

Please Cbayer. You are an educated woman.

We had this same discussion about the term agnostic.

Words have meanings. I will not cede the terms that easily.

A person can be secular and be a atheist Buddhist, a Catholic, a New Age Agnostic, an atheistic materialist, or whatever. It has zero to do with belief about deities and all to do with belief about government and society.

[cbayer]

32. I don't expect you to cede easily, in fact

I think you will put up a good fight.

But i predict that you will lose this one.

There is an urgency to find words that describe the larger group of nonbelievers. The term atheist has been shown to have very negative associations and more and more people are embracing the term secular.

I understand that, in fact, a person can be secular and any of the things you list, but common usage is changing the meaning. I suspect they will have to co-exist.

It happens.

[TM99]

33. Yuppers I will fight.

Because this is ridiculous.

So 'atheism' which actually means lack of belief is such a 'bad' word now that atheists have to take the word 'secular' which has nothing to do with belief and make it their own term to describe a lack of belief?

Christ on a pogo stick, that is ludicrous.

Yeah, this ain't going to stick.

[cbayer]

34. Openlysecular.org is a growing organization.

Freethinkers have been associated with the term secular for over 100 years.

I think it's already sticking, even if it is ludicrous.

[TM99]

37. See my post #36

[edhopper]

10. I agree with Jim

after all what does "gay" mean now?

Language changes.

I can see why this is unhelpful to people who are religious but support a secular government.

[cbayer]

11. It is most difficult for those who are both secularists and believers.

It gets used in an exclusionary way.

[pinto]

12. I would think that secularism inherently supports the separation of church/state standard.

(Sometimes I get lost in the terminology discussions).

[rug]

13. It does ibndeed. And says nothing about beliefs.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Secular.

1. denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
"secular buildings"
synonyms: nonreligious, areligious, lay, temporal, worldly, earthly, profane; formallaic
"secular music"


The author goes on to define secularism, then attempts to use that to redefine "secular". That is an argument by equivocation.

Secularism and secular are related but different words with different meanings. Secular means without religion.

[rug]

15. And?

[Warren Stupidity]

16. So

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. And your point in #2 - "Only in some echo chambers is secular conflated with nonbelief" is incorrect

as that dictionary definition shows.

OED defintion:
Belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred. (dating back to 1290)
Of literature, history, art (esp. music), hence of writers or artists: Not concerned with or devoted to the service of religion; not sacred; profane. Also of buildings, etc., Not dedicated to religious uses. (dating back to 1450)
Of education, instruction; Relating to non-religious subjects. (In modern use often implying the exclusion of religious teaching from education, or from the education provided at the public expense.) Of a school: That gives secular education. (dating back to 1526)
Of or belonging to the present or visible world as distinguished from the eternal or spiritual world; temporal, worldly. (dating back to 1597)
Used for: Pertaining to or accepting the doctrine of secularism; secularistic (dating back to 1856)

'Secularism' dates from 1851; that is defined as "the doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state." At first:
" As the name of a definitely professed system of belief, promulgated by G. J. Holyoake (1817–1906).", then "In wider sense, as denoting a mode of thought more or less implicitly held and acted upon."
Quote from Holyoake, in his 1854 work "Secularism the practical philosophy of the people":
"The term Secularism has been chosen..as expressing a certain positive and ethical element, which the terms ‘Infidel’, ‘Sceptic’, ‘Atheist’ do not express."

'Secular' meaning 'non-religious' came first; a few centuries later, the concept of 'secularism' (which was, at first, about morality and ethics, rather than church-state separation or religious equality in law) came later.

[rug]

18. "distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal."

It has nothing to do with atheism or nonbelief. It distinguishes church affairs from wordly, or state affairs.

In fact,saeculartis was used by the chrch a long time ago to make that distinction.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular

The point stands.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Not 'state affairs'; used for art, education and morality, for hundreds of years (nt)

[rug]

21. To accept your usage, you have to accept that atheism means more than it is.

Does atheism, nonbelief, have a position on separation of state and church? Does it have a position on anything at all beyond nonbelief?

If you appropriate the term secular to atheism, you have also added an enormous pile of baggage to the term, a weight that will be both untenable and regrettable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. No; we've shown that 'non-religious', applied to a variety of areas, is the long-standing meaning

It's not a matter of 'appropriating' the word; it already meant 'nonreligious' a long time before people started talking about the separation of church and state. You might say the people in the 19th century who started talking about that separation did borrow 'secular' for their subject, but I don't see that as a big problem. It still managed to mean 'nonreligious' as well - they didn't take away that meaning.

Honestly, your post makes so little sense, you may as well try and restate the whole thing again. It's a word salad.

[rug]

23. Who has shown what?

Nonreligious does not mean nonbelief.

Is that simple enough?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. The OP article was about the 'non-religious' meaning; it was cbayer who introduced 'non-belief'

and equated them, in reply #1. If your point is that there can be a difference between the 2, you should have said that in #2, rather than going along with cbayer and only now pointing out a difference.

[Igel]

20. They don't get to define it.

It's not like we all get to pick a word or two and foist our definition on nearly 500 million native speakers of English.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular works for "secular." It's not really an advocacy group and doesn't necessarily have a position it's defending or promoting. Theirs is a definition; it is not the definition.

McWhorter made this same egregious mistake in discussing "thug" on NPR. He pointed out that blacks and whites often have different meanings (of course, his explanation of what "thug" meant to the "black community" went full-blown incoherent when discussing Obama's use of the word; he made Obama look to be a raging dissembler on the issue, which I think does Obama a disservice). McWhorter then pointed out that some groups used the word in a third way, but that their current and active use was obsolete because other groups didn't use the word that way. In other words, he also argued that some groups get to define words for all of society. Nifty in its 1960s attempt to shift power to one group through linguistic manipulation, but utterly specious.

While looking up what "secular" and "secularism" in all their meanings as used by the entire speech community, also look up "cant" and "jargon."