crazyfingers

To me "secular" means an absence of content or motivation related to or about religion.

Under that definition, a pledge that read "One nation, not under god, with liberty, etc.." would not fit the definition of secular because the subject of religion, even in the negative, is included.

A secular pledge would have no mention of a god one way or another - as the pre-1954 pledge did.

So I think to this extent we agree.

When talking about non-religion leading to a secular view, I think that comment applies for the cultures that most of us live in at the moment - cultures dominated by religious people.

However, in a different world were most people are atheist, if those people had a pledge that said "under no god" then that would not be a secular pledge. But why would they do that?

I wonder what the point would be in including the "under no god" part. In a world where the vast majority are nonreligious, there would probably be little point in actually including the "no god" part - it would be assumed by most that no god was involved just as it would be assumed that there are no rainbow colored elephants involved.

In an atheist world, I think that to include an "under no god" phase in a pledge would be about as likely as including an "under no green blobs of Jupiter" phase in the pledge. What would be the point?

ithinklogic

Re-iterating:

I said 'in an atheist country' not atheist world. So presumably there would be other countries with a religious majority and hence there would be a point of distinction.

crazyfingers

It's possible of course. But it's my opinion that it would probably be unlikely. But in the unlikely event that an atheist society went out of it's way to point out the obvious, that it is not under a god, then it would not be a secular pledge. If it's government made discintions and favored a nonreligious point of view, it would also not be secular.

However, within the contect of the countries in which most of us live, I do think that nonreligon does lead to secularism.

So, while I agree that what you describe can happen, I also think that it's largely unlikely for the audience that Lowder was speaking to.

ithinklogic

The point that I was raising was that Lowder distinguishes very clearly between an atheistic pledge and a secular pledge in the paragraph but the last statement then blurs the difference between a nonbeliever (atheist) and a secularist. In some other context, the last statement would have been fine but not when you are trying to specifically present the differences between secular and atheistic.

If the sentence had read 'Secularists would be just as opposed to an atheistic Pledge of Allegiance as they are opposed to a theistic Pledge of Allegiance.' that would have been fine.

Alternately, if some relationship had been established about why nonbelievers would inherently be opposed to an atheistic pledge and would prefer a secular pledge, that would have been fine too.

2tadpoles

If the Pledge made no mention of gods altogether, either for or against, it would be secular and atheistic (without gods). If it mentions gods, as it does, it is theistic. If it were to read "one nation, free from gods" it would be anti-theistic.

Being without gods doesn't necessarily mean being against gods.

Just my $.02.

Tangie

Claudia

In a country where governmental atheist doctrine were forced onto believers, and religious people persecuted, it would not be secularism. Do you think that no atheist dictature of this kind could exist?

Dark Jedi

They can and have, in a form.

Some communist states have outlawed or greatly restricted religion. That is not quite the same as an atheist dictatorship, but will work for this example.

In either case, most of the folks you would meet here would oppose that as well. The great majority of us are strong supporters of personal rights and religious freedom.
We learned the hard way what the dark side of religious persecution looks like, and will have no truck with it at all.

Buffman

Hi Claudia,

"Long time no see!"

Do you think that no atheist dictature of this kind could exist?

IMHO, humans, whether theist or non-theist, are capable of just about anything...at any place and time.

In a country where governmental atheist doctrine were forced onto believers, and religious people persecuted, it would not be secularism.

Are you referring to the old USSR and China when you make this statement? Exactly what is the "atheist doctrine?" Could there be an atheist doctrine without religious persecution? Perhaps if there could be such a thing, it would be called "pluralistic secularism." Perhaps we could even develop a form of government that would separate church from state and legally protect theists from an atheistic government's persecution...or vice versa.