Secular--what does it mean? I mean, really mean. Here are some of the on-line-dictionary definitions I found:
"Worldly rather than spiritual." "Relating to or advocating secularism." "Of or relating to the worldly or temporal." "Of or pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy."
A synonym for secular is irreligious. Antonym-wise, "spiritual" fills the bill.
Of course, relying on a dictionary to find out what a word means is so... old hat. I'm not pretending otherwise. I'm fully aware that, to be completely with it ("Uh... man"--Roger Price), we're supposed to A) make a wild guess or B) go with the NPR definition. Such as NPR's definition of "problematic," which I wrote about several weeks ago. There's what the word really means (puzzling, enigmatic) and there is what people misuse it to mean (problem-filled).
Actually, to me, "problematic" sounds like some TV product designed to solve problems. "Get your Problematic today! Only $19.99. Call now and get an Enigmatic FREE of charge!"
Anyway, secular is the opposite of religious or spiritual. We can agree on that, I hope.
So, what are many people taking it to mean? Neutral. They think it denotes neutrality. Our Founding Fathers, for instance, were neutral on the subject of religion. Religiously neutral about religion, we could say. (Get it? Ha-yuk, yuk!)
And, somehow, that stance is seen by many today as a secular one. Worse, it's cited as proof that our government is a secular government. (Stop me when this starts to sound sane.)
And we're hearing this dictionary-uninformed notion a lot in the wake of Mitt Romney's half-baked speech about the role of religion in politics--the one in which he pointed out that, no, we aren't a religious nation, but yes, we are a religious nation.
Which brings to mind the Monty Python sketch with John Cleese saying, "No, I am not the brain surgeon! No, I am not.... YES, I am the brain surgeon!" Somebody please send Mitt to Dr. Cleese.
And, so, some folks are scolding Romney for (guess which?) A) continually contradicting himself virtually within the same damn sentences, or for B) failing to recognize that our nation is a secular one, in spite of the fact that it isn't. If you guessed B, then you're pretty far-left-literate.
The secularists in question are chiding Romney for not grasping, as any self-respecting dictionary avoider would, that our Founding Fathers, by not establishing a state religion, were in effect creating a secular nation. Because the opposite of religion in government is....
A) A neutral stance in regard to the religious AND the secular or B) The United States of richard dawkins.
Idiots choose B. I'm guessing you chose A. Congratulations.
Is a non-religion-based system of government necessarily a worldly, irreligious, or secularist one? Of course not. It's entirely possible to have a form of government that doesn't cater or answer to religion yet which does not embrace secularism. Proof: that's the government we happen to have.
It's so beautifully simple. By contrast, the false notion of a secularist America is based on a series of Homer-Simpson-style pseudo-conclusions. It starts with some dawkins-style celebrity atheist (take your pick) insisting that atheism is not a belief system but rather something based on absence of belief. And, because the point is so meaningless, we're willing to agree. Fine. Who cares.
Then, suddenly, atheism becomes secularism. And secularism, by misdefinition, becomes the absence of a stance. Secularism therefore comes to be misdefined as neutral.
In other words, "No, I am not the brain surgeon! I am not the.... YES, I am the brain surgeon!!"
In reality, whereas atheism is the absence of belief, secularism is nothing of the kind. Equating the two is therefore a mistake. And, in terms of keeping our tradition of ideological freedom intact, even a dangerous one.
15 comments:
Wow. Linked over to this from your sharity (I really enjoyed the new post from Shaw et al!), and am extremely impressed by your take on this. I completely agree-and it's refreshing to hear someone state something so clearly and concisely.
Neutral does not mean secular. It means neither religious OR secular, which most people don't seem to understand (even, as you point out, certain Presidential candidates).
Thank you for this--I'll be pointing many "thinking" friends your way.
Disnaster,
Thank you! I was just arguing (on-line) with someone who disagrees with us--according to him, a secular government IS one that is neutral in respect to religious beliefs. So, I asked him how he'd feel about the reverse scenario, i.e. if we had a religious form of governement. Would he feel that his secular views were respected and protected? Not very likely! Yet no one need worry about religious freedom under secular rule?
Someone else thought that I was arguing, Romney-fashion, that our nation is God-based. And I had made it very clear I didn't believe such a thing. It's weird....
Secular isn't necessarily anti-religious, which would be the opposite of religious. There's a spectrum here: Religious -> neither religious nor anti-religious -> anti-religious. When people talk about a secular government, they aren't talking about one that is anti-religious. The opposite of a government that institutionalizes religion would be one that prohibits religion, and no one is seriously advocating for that in America.
An example: Having "In God We Trust" as the national motto promotes religion (in addition to making a number of concrete claims about the nature of God.) Having "E Pluribus Unum" as our motto is secular and neutral. A non-neutral motto that is the "opposite" of the religious one would be something like "There Is No God." I haven't seen anyone suggest that one yet.
Actually, secular (worldly) is the opposite of religious. I'm fully aware of the spectrum you describe--especially the middle part. Which is why I suggested that our form of government is neither pro-religious nor pro-secular but neither (neutral).
Yes, the opposite of a theocracy is a secular society, and my point is that we need not adopt such an extreme form (as many are loudly calling for--except for those who insist we're already there). All we need do by way of not endorsing religion is just that--not endorse it. Secularism is the other side of the coin, and just as evil.
I don't agree at all with your assertion that a secular system, because it wouldn't necessarily be anti-religious, is therefore neutral. Again, neutral is not a synonym for secular. At best, secularism is indifferent to religion. At worst, it's against religion. You would not want a theocracy; I would not want secular rule. I respect your stance and hope you can respect mine.
You're interpreting the word "opposite" to mean "in opposition to." Male is the "opposite" of female -- that doesn't make man the enemy of woman. Likewise, the FBI and CIA have different jurisdictions -- that doesn't make the FBI the opposite of the CIA. Similarly, the government and the church have different jurisdictions; the church attends to matters of the spirit, and the secular government to the functions of the material world. To say that they are "opposites" and therefore "against" one another is either a political maneuver or an example of semantic confusion. The argument that a secular government is either "neutral" or "against" religion is a non sequitur -- a secular government should be separate from religion. It's like arguing that apples are, at best, neutral toward oranges.
Political maneuver? I'm to the left of Gore and Clinton, so figure the odds.
What you call a non sequitur comes straight from the dictionary--I'm merely reporting on the meaning of the word "secular." I realize it's used incorrectly in political contexts, just as many words are used incorrectly in business and/or on NPR (where "nuanced" means multi-layered, vice something that contains sublte differences in meaning--way different animal.) Because secular is the opposite of religion, we believers aren't comfortable with the possible implications of a secular government. To put it another way, no one cries foul when secularists condemen theocracies as anti-secular, yet the concept of a secularist nation as anti-religious is somehow invalid? Either both concepts are correct or both are wrong.
Anyway, my point is that secular is misunderstood as a concept. If nothing else, that misunderstanding (that we are a Godless nation) serves to back up the bigoted ways of those who consider richard dawkins a great (and tolerant) thinker.
People need to understand that our founders were neither for nor against religion or lack thereof. There are too many on the left AND the right convinced that the founders were speaking for their group and their interests. The founders were trying to speak for EVERYONE.
Secular does not mean neutral. It concerns me that so many think so.
Lee
My comment about political maneuvers didn't relate to whether one identifies with the Left or Right. My point is that trying to position non-religious (not anti-religious) government at the extreme end of the spectrum is a rhetorical move intended to shift the debate toward institutionalized religion. The spectrum, as I said earlier, is anti-religious -> non-religious -> religious. It seems as though you won't recognize a difference between an anti-religious and a non-religious government because your argument is so invested in a particular definition of the word "opposite." I realize that the dictionary says "secular" is the opposite of "religious," but a better definition of "opposite" in this context is "in corresponding position with in relation to," not "in opposition to" or "against." In what way would a non-religious government that doesn't interfere with the free exercise of religion not be neutral?
I appreciate your participation in this discussion, by the way, and love your music blog!
Thanks for the nice words! More music to come, as we speak....
Or soon, at least.
As for placing non-religious government at the extreme end of the spectrum, that isn't my intention--and I don't think it's what I'm doing. I don't want a theocracy. I wouldn't want one even if it catered to my views. The alternative to having a theocracy is just that--not having one. It doesn't necessitate going secular. It necessitates going neutral.
And I don't think I'm splitting hairs to point out that secular doesn't mean neutral. I don't feel you've proven that secular equals neutral in any context--if so, in which? After all, there's no threat of a theocracy on the horizon, in distinct contrast to the situation that existed in the early days of our nation. Our founders had the possibility (probability?) of a state church staring them in the face--so, of course, they had to devise a way to avoid forming a Church of America.
To carry on their policy--this long after the danger--of holding religion at bay is both irrational and discriminatory. Suppose we treated business, sports, and other interests in the same manner? Suppose we decided that the mere mention of athletics in the political square signaled a coming sportsocracy? What if everyone went ape-you-know-what when a politician tossed a baseball for the cameras?
We don't, because we know that representing the area of sports isn't out of keeping with the goals of a representative democracy, nor does it constitute an undue endorsement or promotion of sports. Whose rights are squashed if Mitt says he likes football?
Yet, Hillary or Nancy mentions God and prayer, and it's time to call out the Anti-God Squad.
Maybe we need to focus on what neutrality means in the context of democracy. It really entails not granting more attention or importance to any one interest over another. Our government should remain neutral to religion in THAT strict sense--neutral but hardly indifferent. As it should remain neutral toward any and all interests, unless we can prove that, by merely acknowledging a particular interest, the government is dangerously empowering it. And that is precisely what militant secularists have yet to BEGIN to prove. We fear religion too much to regard it rationally. And the need for that fear is long gone.
Lee
(...different Anonymous...)
"unless we can prove that, by merely acknowledging a particular interest, the government is dangerously empowering it. And that is precisely what militant secularists have yet to BEGIN to prove. We fear religion too much to regard it rationally. And the need for that fear is long gone."
Wow. You really need to walk in the shoes of a non-Christian for awhile. The fear is entirely justified. Political issues like abortion and gay marriage are based squarely on the Bible.
Currently, 46% of the US population would not vote for an atheist for President, regardless of qualifications. Numbers for non-Christian religions are not as bad, but still disheartening.
(Atheists, however, really have no choice. In all of Congress, there are only two admitted non-Christians.)
Christians are in complete control of the US, and don't have a very good track record regarding non-Christians. The burden of proof that things have changed lies on them, not militant secularists. (Although I find them damned annoying, personally.)
Your points about the difference between neutrality and secularism are well made and I agree that secular is being misused. (And wasn't aware of it until reading your post.) But the difference applies just as well to the strongly religious who seem to view not mentioning God as being the same as denial, as happens every single time anyone criticizes "under God" or "In God We Trust". God help a store that decides to be inclusive and say "Happy Holidays."
Really enjoy the tunes you supplied, however. I love Christmas, in a non-religious, but not secular, sort of way.
"And the need for that fear is long gone."
Police: N.Y. subway riders beaten after 'Happy Hanukkah' greeting:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/933597.html
The "original" Anonymous here. From now on, I'll be known as Captain Anonymous. Keep an eye out for my forthcoming line of action figures.
After reading these posts, I've revised my opinion somewhat. I still think a secular government could be neutral, but I no longer believe that a neutral government is what anyone wants, secularists included. A truly neutral government would neither protect nor prohibit religious exercise, and practically everyone supports the protection of religious freedoms. That's not a neutral stance.
In fact, our current government protects and promotes religion--especially Christianity--in many ways. We have a national pledge to God, a national motto to God that is on all of our currency and some license plates, tax breaks for churches, a myriad of blue laws, official government prayer functions, national prayer days, proselytizing at taxpayer expense through faith-based programs, coercive evangelism in the military, partial success in some states in institutionalizing prayer in public schools, abstinence-only sex education, mixed success at injecting religion into science classes, Christian iconography in some city seals, some protected religious displays on public land, a ton of religious broadcasting on the public airwaves (traditionally understood to be part of "the Commons"), and that's just off the top of my head. This growing list is the cause of the current backlash against religion in government (and in general) because it really isn't in keeping with a pluralistic society that values "liberty and justice for all." Despite the Christian community's gains during the last several years, and their majority status, and their political and social clout...I have learned from reading Letters to the Editor that they remain the most persecuted people in America! So when some observers complain about Hillary's religious rhetoric, they are really reacting to this flood of government religion streaming into the public sphere.
The "Original" Anonymous,
Any monster figures included in your product list? I'm partial to Japanese movie critters.
"I no longer believe that a neutral government is what anyone wants, secularists included. A truly neutral government would neither protect nor prohibit religious exercise, and practically everyone supports the protection of religious freedoms. That's not a neutral stance."
In the context of government, it is, because it's the government's job to represent and protect the interests of the people. Neutral means not going above or beyond that requirement, which generally means not serving or promoting religion to the detriment of other things. What you've listed are the standard things allowed in the name of religion--including token mentions of God, who can be anyone's god, really. And I would counter that such services, perks, whatever, are offered for many other interests besides religion. If we think churches have it good, how about huge corporations that not only skip paying taxes but GET PAID by the government? I live in a state in which businesses are treated like sacred institutions (no pun intended). Our big city paper bitches in cold-blooded fashion about the need to keep workers' wages down. They're anti-union, anti-public-education, and the works. Standard conservative values, and not religious ones, per se.
And we have much endorsement of athletics. Hoo, boy, do we. Like I said, no one's sounding the alarm about official endorsement of sports. Or warning of an impending sportsocracy.
It's the govt.'s job to serve the people. The examples you cite hardly amount to the Church of America, and many are unique to the current batch of neoconpoops, whose favors, ostensibly, are to the most conservative Christians, and not people of religion in general. These folks are breaking laws and soiling on time-honored principles one after the other--it's hard to keep a score card. Why single out the favors they're doing for religion, which 1) amount to token concessions and 2) ultimately serve the interests of rich, power-grasping SOBs and not the folks dumb enough to vote for "family values." The folks who support those clowns get nothing in return but a kick in the pants. Bush isn't serving the interests of religion. If anything, he's serving the interests of the rich by way of a small portion of the faith community.
Of course the government protects religion. It's supposed to. What it's NOT supposed to do is favor any one religion over another, or to make religion the centerpiece of anything. Neutral governing is a type in which favoritism isn't shown to one person, group, institution, etc. over another. Roughly the same treatment for everyone. It doesn't imply sitting back and letting things take their own course. The U.S. has done just that in recent years, allowing various corporations to run amok (paging Ronnie Raygun), and where has it gotten anyone? A few people have benefitted and everyone else suffers.
The U.S. govt.'s goal is to lay down the law only when necessary. Hands-off is relative philosophy. Any govt. has zillions of things to run. It's open 24/7.
Lee
Different Anonymous,
"You really need to walk in the shoes of a non-Christian for awhile. The fear is entirely justified. Political issues like abortion and gay marriage are based squarely on the Bible."
Are you seriously suggesting that believers, as a group, are against these things? As I like to point out to people, Christians vote like everyone else: they pick one guy, or they pick the other, or (like most Americans) they stay home. When it comes to gay rights and the right to choose, C.'s--like the rest of the population--either support these or they don't. It depends on the believer. As a group, we're divided. Like the nation at large.
I'm a person of faith, and I'm pro-choice and pro-gay. The latter term, of course, meaning that I do not believe in limiting the civil rights of gays in any manner.
On the other hand, there are people of faith who disagree with me. So, there we have the two types of believers re those issues.
"Currently, 46% of the US population would not vote for an atheist for President, regardless of qualifications."
Nor would those folks vote for a woman (I hope Hillary proves otherwise, but I dunno), or a male under 5'11", or a bald man, or a disabled person, or an unattractive person (paging John Kerry), or anyone on the wrong side of the conservative smear machine, or an obese person, or someone who spoke too softly, or an agoraphobic person, or anyone to the left of Hillary, and so on. Meanwhile, one of the most powerful people in the Bush gang, Karl Rove, was widely known to be an atheist--reporters even joked about it. This is an excellent example of how little Bush, Cheney, et. al really care about such matters.
"But the difference applies just as well to the strongly religious who seem to view not mentioning God as being the same as denial, as happens every single time anyone criticizes 'under God' or 'In God We Trust'. God help a store that decides to be inclusive and say 'Happy Holidays.'"
For what it's worth, I think the public has been prompted to get in a lather over that stuff--and I don't think they really give that much of a damn. The press has exploited this nonsense shamelessly. It takes much less work to get people all righteous over non-issues than to, say, get them concerned over things that really affect the planet. The public takes way too many cues from the press. As for "Happy Holidays," it served successfully as the title of the 1942 Irving Berlin hit. No one at the time, to my knowledge, suggested that Irving (who was born in Russia) posed any threat to our way of life. And people were in an unusually patriotic way circa 1942, no?
People love to get worked up over nothing. Makes them feel all special, and it requires nothing of them. Sort of like putting up a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker while ignoring the nonstop injustices done to soldiers and vets.
Lee
Captain Anonymous sez:
Sensible words as always, Lee. I agree that the media fans these flames. It makes everyone on all sides paranoid with fear, and then these fears lead to fever dreams of persecution, suspicion towards others, and -- worse yet -- policy decisions based on those prejudices and anxieties. Meanwhile, in the real world, people mostly get along with one another pretty well.
Captain Anon.,
Exactly--like, where's all the strife and conflict? It's mostly invented. The majority of folks don't mind being in the company of other viewpoints and beliefs. In other words, what you said.
Thanks for the nice words,
Lee
Post a Comment