Freethought & Rationalism Archive

d'naturalist · 07-31-2002, 05:10 AM

Question: are we shooting ourselves in the foot by demanding a "secular" government?

I'm not questioning the idea of government being neutral with regards to personal beliefs, but rather, is the word "secular" really the best one to use? It occurs to me that the term "secular" has taken on a greater association with atheism and irreligion in the past century. Given the general public's lack of sophistication with terminology, our goal of a "secular gov't" may be being mistaken as a goal of a gov't that promotes irreligion.

Unfortunately, my semi-sophistication with terminology has left me unable to quickly come up with a replacement, so I'll open the floor for suggestions. I'm wondering if there's some fancy latin term that equates to "all-inclusive"? IMHO, I think we need to promote the idea that gov't represents & serves all the people and considers all people (secular & religious) of equal value. I know this seems self-evident to most of us, but the rest of the country doesn't seem to get it.

Any comments or suggestions? Or am I just nuts?

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-31-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by d'naturalist:
Question: are we shooting ourselves in the foot by demanding a "secular" government?

Actually, I never thought of this issue, but, now that you bring it up, in my own arguments and debates I never use the word 'secular'. And, to be honest, I wan well see how it can be interpreted as 'anti-God'.

I have always been a major proponent if making sure that one communicates clearly -- and any term that can be twisted against the author's intent is a term that an author wishing to communicate clearly should shy away from.

So, it sounds reasonable to me. But, then again, I have never used the term in debate, so I have no practical experience as to how usefull or counterproductive it may be.

capsaicin67 · 07-31-2002, 06:31 AM

Interesting. I have no particular idea as to what could replace it, but I think that the general idea of understanding that language is largely made-up stuff, and that it is made up of ideas that have a traditional or generally held usage and meaning, and also a feeling that they generate or that they sometimes take on different types of significance in various contexts is important to mastering the message and communicating well. We should not be afraid to examine strategy at all levels of our message.

Kinda reminds me of the old advertising story about the the Nova car, and how they were going to sell it in Mexico. I can't remember what they changed it to, but I believe that they did change it. They knew their goal---to sell cars, not to show that they had a right to name a car whatever they want.

CaptainDave · 07-31-2002, 07:04 AM

I've always liked the word "secular" myself. I favor the term "secular American" to describe the 14.1% of the people in the ARIS survey who indicated they have no religion;they're not all atheists/agnostics. It's certainly a term more palatable to the masses than "atheist." It's the term I would have used to name the Godless American March, replacing godless with secular.

I see your point though about how it can be mis-interpreted when applied to the government.

Atheists are secular

A secular government is an atheistic government.

This is flawed, of course but it's a mistake too easy to make.

rudolk · 07-31-2002, 07:27 AM

I started scouring websters.com for synonyms to secular, and could really find only one alternative.

Quote:

la�ic Pronunciation Key (lk) also la�i�cal (--kl)
adj.
Of or relating to the laity; secular.

n.
A layperson.

I guess by that definition, we could say that we want a layman's government, which usually gives the connotation of the workaday common Joe. "Put it in layman's terms, doc," has to be something I've heard quite a few times in my life. Not very catchy (I tend to think it runs together to sound like "Lame-man"), but it's the best I could do.

Jamie_L · 07-31-2002, 08:09 AM

I think secular is the right word. Unfortunately, people who want a religious government have done a bang-up job of attaching an atheistic connotation to the word "secular". That's a shame.

Instead of find another word (which would be hard) we need to work hard to educate others as to what "secular" really means. A secular government makes no judgement about god. An atheist government would have an official stance that "there is no god." That's a big difference, and that difference needs to be shown to people.

Other people need to understand that we value our freedom from religion so much that we don't want a government that promotes atheism. A government empowered to promote atheism is equally empowered to promote theism. A government that has no power to promote either is what we want. And, it's what they should want too.

If you really don't want a government promoting atheism, a secular government is the only way to go.

Jamie

07-31-2002, 08:21 AM

The real problem lies not so much in the words "secular" and "atheistic" but in the ideas that they represent. As long as there is a confusion about the ideas, there will always be a problem about the words. If you look at the history of language it is clear that people start to object to a word when they don't like the idea it represents. So another word is substituted, but it is soon tarnished by association with the basic idea, and so on. Just look at the different names there have been for the place where one answers the call of nature. It has almost as many synonyms as the words for the sexual organs!

So I agree that the best answer is education about the distinctions between the ideas. The words will not then be so much of a problem.

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-31-2002, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
Instead of find another word (which would be hard) we need to work hard to educate others as to what "secular" really means.

If you need to explain what a term means, then you have already lost your argument.

Because, quite simply, the vast majority of the people will not sit through learning a new definition. The ones they already have are good enough for them and that's just the way it is.

In order to get people to understand you, you need to speak to them in their own language.

Jamie_L · 07-31-2002, 09:59 AM

Well, one of my favorites of late has been to coopt the terms of the other side.

"Religious freedom" is impossible if you give the government the ability to impose its will on religious affairs.

After all, if Christians fear an atheist government, they shouldn't give that government any power they wouldn't want used by future atheist politicians.

Jamie

Autonemesis · 07-31-2002, 10:35 AM

I don't think dumbing down the terminology serves anyone's interests. Secular is the word that describes the form of government that was setup by the US Constitution. Despite all the religious and non-religious trappings, speeches, letters, declarations and opinions of the authors of that document, if they wanted the government to be non-secular they would have set it up that way. This is the kind of education the general public needs to receive. Whitewashing the cause of secularism with a fairer name will just give us another term we desire to cleanse ourselves of in a few decades.

07-31-2002, 05:10 AM	#1
d'naturalist Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: USA Posts: 245	Terminology: "Secular" Government? Question: are we shooting ourselves in the foot by demanding a "secular" government? I'm not questioning the idea of government being neutral with regards to personal beliefs, but rather, is the word "secular" really the best one to use? It occurs to me that the term "secular" has taken on a greater association with atheism and irreligion in the past century. Given the general public's lack of sophistication with terminology, our goal of a "secular gov't" may be being mistaken as a goal of a gov't that promotes irreligion. Unfortunately, my semi-sophistication with terminology has left me unable to quickly come up with a replacement, so I'll open the floor for suggestions. I'm wondering if there's some fancy latin term that equates to "all-inclusive"? IMHO, I think we need to promote the idea that gov't represents & serves all the people and considers all people (secular & religious) of equal value. I know this seems self-evident to most of us, but the rest of the country doesn't seem to get it. Any comments or suggestions? Or am I just nuts?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2002, 06:31 AM	#3
capsaicin67 Contributor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gold coast plain, sea, scrubland, mountain range. Posts: 20,955	Interesting. I have no particular idea as to what could replace it, but I think that the general idea of understanding that language is largely made-up stuff, and that it is made up of ideas that have a traditional or generally held usage and meaning, and also a feeling that they generate or that they sometimes take on different types of significance in various contexts is important to mastering the message and communicating well. We should not be afraid to examine strategy at all levels of our message. Kinda reminds me of the old advertising story about the the Nova car, and how they were going to sell it in Mexico. I can't remember what they changed it to, but I believe that they did change it. They knew their goal---to sell cars, not to show that they had a right to name a car whatever they want.

07-31-2002, 07:04 AM	#4
CaptainDave Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Florida Keys Posts: 119	I've always liked the word "secular" myself. I favor the term "secular American" to describe the 14.1% of the people in the ARIS survey who indicated they have no religion;they're not all atheists/agnostics. It's certainly a term more palatable to the masses than "atheist." It's the term I would have used to name the Godless American March, replacing godless with secular. I see your point though about how it can be mis-interpreted when applied to the government. Atheists are secular A secular government is an atheistic government. This is flawed, of course but it's a mistake too easy to make.

07-31-2002, 08:09 AM	#6
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I think secular is the right word. Unfortunately, people who want a religious government have done a bang-up job of attaching an atheistic connotation to the word "secular". That's a shame. Instead of find another word (which would be hard) we need to work hard to educate others as to what "secular" really means. A secular government makes no judgement about god. An atheist government would have an official stance that "there is no god." That's a big difference, and that difference needs to be shown to people. Other people need to understand that we value our freedom from religion so much that we don't want a government that promotes atheism. A government empowered to promote atheism is equally empowered to promote theism. A government that has no power to promote either is what we want. And, it's what they should want too. If you really don't want a government promoting atheism, a secular government is the only way to go. Jamie

07-31-2002, 08:21 AM	#7
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	The real problem lies not so much in the words "secular" and "atheistic" but in the ideas that they represent. As long as there is a confusion about the ideas, there will always be a problem about the words. If you look at the history of language it is clear that people start to object to a word when they don't like the idea it represents. So another word is substituted, but it is soon tarnished by association with the basic idea, and so on. Just look at the different names there have been for the place where one answers the call of nature. It has almost as many synonyms as the words for the sexual organs! So I agree that the best answer is education about the distinctions between the ideas. The words will not then be so much of a problem.

07-31-2002, 09:59 AM	#9
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Well, one of my favorites of late has been to coopt the terms of the other side. "Religious freedom" is impossible if you give the government the ability to impose its will on religious affairs. After all, if Christians fear an atheist government, they shouldn't give that government any power they wouldn't want used by future atheist politicians. Jamie

07-31-2002, 10:35 AM	#10
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	I don't think dumbing down the terminology serves anyone's interests. Secular is the word that describes the form of government that was setup by the US Constitution. Despite all the religious and non-religious trappings, speeches, letters, declarations and opinions of the authors of that document, if they wanted the government to be non-secular they would have set it up that way. This is the kind of education the general public needs to receive. Whitewashing the cause of secularism with a fairer name will just give us another term we desire to cleanse ourselves of in a few decades.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.