![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm not sure why there is an article here about secularism, but then, I haven't studied religion formally, and maybe it's a big topic in religious studies. At any rate, the above (I say as someone who is thoroughly nonreligious--I don't know what "God" means) really offensively biased. I wouldn't even know how to rewrite it. What does it mean to say that "most Western societies are secular"? See neutral point of view. -- LMS
I didn't write the above, but calling Western societies secular isn't biased. (The urge to convert comment maybe is though.) In sociology/studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular: meaning that they have no established or state religion, there is near-complete freedom of religion (you can believe in any religion or none at all, with little legal or social sanction), and that religion is not as important in most people's lives as it once was. -- Simon J Kissane
The statement that it is "the lowest level of religiosity" seems definitely not NPOV! Some people regarding themselves as "secularists" insist that they are not religious and that's why they call themselves that. Besides, doesn't "secular" mean "pertaining to time", as opposed to pertaining to eternity? Michael Hardy 02:48 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
(Unless i have erred, all times are UTC)
An editor has removed
and asks, as summary for that, "How does this fit here? How did anybody miss this?"
I don't know whether what was considered to not "fit" and as "missed" was the injection of PM or the implicit critique of how it was injected.
The history of that text is:
(The original sentence, BTW, was one of 4 sentences contributed by User:195.195.234.4 in their two article-creating edits related to PM, in Sept & Oct of 2003.)
My rationale for my change was that the PoV that PM has something important to say abt this subject may be relevant, but that the link is just a spam ad for PM as it stood, and that it needs being turning into something enabling the reader to better judge its relevance to their own interest. I had hoped the language i chose would function somewhat like stub boilerplate, applying to the link rather than a whole article. Given that that has not happened, i am happy to see it disappear from the article, but IMO the failure to move it to this talk page, and the uninformative and indignant summary which compounds it are counterproductive. Better it should have stayed there, saving me from this effort, but now that this talk-edit is done, IMO nothing more need be done about PM on this page, except by someone interested and informed enuf to add something amounting to "PM says not!" to the article.
(I am not in a position to say whether anything was missed by anyone other than the editor who precipitated this talk-edit by me, who missed the fact that at least i (in spite of my skepticism twd any PM critique of secularization and/or secularism), and probably at least a few other editors, disagreed with the judgement that reference to PM deserved deletion without substantive comment.)
I believe the following shouldn't be in this article (perhaps, if documented, it could be part of an article on the growing secularism of Europe and the US in the late 18th-early 19th century):
The lightning rod, for example, played a part during this period, due to the lack of its adoption by churches until the occurrence of disaster. David.Monniaux 11:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When applied to society, secularism is considered to be any of a range of situations where a society less automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for conflict in various forms, than in recent generations of the same society.
Since year 2000 there is no connection between church of sweden and the government, so I delete sweden from the list of nordic countries with offical churches. More info on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Sweden
There are movements in America which seek to unify Church and State, and that doesn't automatically mean that these movements are right.
Likewise, the mere existence of movements seeking disestablishment in Norway does not mean that these movements are right.
"It should be noted though that Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark are among the most secular countries in the world when measuring the amount of religious persons as percent of the population."
I don't understand the logic here. Does it make any sense to refer to people as secular people? Aren't they usually called atheist? or agnostic?
Is this really relevant when secularism is supposed to grant freedom of religion, rather than deliver the elimination of religion?
I'm very confused. in this article it say a secular government is a government without religion influence. However, many sites I search in the web refer the opposite, as "secular king" or "medieval secular authorities". Please someone explain. 201.8.212.191 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC) user:SSPecteR 1 november 2006
I think this could bear more discussion. "Eating a meal" was changed to "eating fast food". I thought that the change could have been intentionally insulting to secular activities (ie secular activities are like fast food compared with the proper square meal of religion!), but might also have been made on the grounds that meals are a key element of many religions. Obviously that doesn't make eating meals *inherently* religious, but in order to avoid any debate, I changed the example to "shopping". For the record, I had no problem with "eating a meal" in the first place.
However, there is a problem. And that problem is that I'm not sure that "inherently religious" is the best standard here.
For a start, "visiting a place of worship" is not inherently religious. I visit places of worship, as a tourist. So do lots of nonreligious people. So couldn't "visiting a place of worship" appear in the list of secular activities?
I don't think, really, that a "secular" activity can be adequately defined as "not inherently religious". I think there must be something more fundamental than that. -- Dannyno 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You'd have thought these were understood as part of what "secular" simply means. The bolded texts were excised by User:PelleSmith: "free from religious or spiritual qualities, assessing natural causes without reference to the supernatural--with the edit summary being free from "religious" qualities has no necessary connection to a distinction between "supernatural" and "natural" causes-- and the text "An approximate synonym for secular is worldly in the sense "of this physical world", although from a Christian or a metaphysical point of view, "secular" may be used as a contrast to "spiritual"."-- with the edit summary: the distinction between physical and meta-physical is not inherent in this defintion and puts a POV frame on the dichotemy I wonder what "POV" means in such a context? Neither the supernatural nor the metaphysical is addressed in secularism. It is just part of the definition, though perhaps User:PelleSmith has not taken a moment to consider this. Can it be new to anyone? Perhaps this editor is hazy too about " metaphysical". "POV" I assume is merely the usual club to beat us with that signifies "not to my taste". Does the editor not understand that supernatural is what is not secular, and that religion is merely part of the supernatural? Is this difficult?-- Wetman 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is also possible to be confused by reading books, or worse reviews of books, like Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers, where secularism and "freethought" at times seem synonymous. I could sum up most of my argument above by saying that Secularism in its multifarious forms should not be conflated with a philosophy like Freethought (a particular secularist ideology), however related they may be. PelleSmith 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the sentence that listed abortion, stem cell research and sex education as examples of where "decisions" are based upon religious belief. It was merely the commentary of some Wikipedian. There was NO citation given for the sentence. Also, the sentence was unclear and pointless. It referred to "decisions" but it did not point out what "decisions." It did not state who was making these decisions. The whole section was just an appendix to the section before it. I removed the POV sentence. Also, the original sentence referred to "stem cell research." The sentence did not point out who was making these strange "decisions" on what issues and it gave the completely false and misleading impression that there only one type of stem cell research, I assume the type of stem cell research that Michael J. Fox advocates. It showed a complete lack of understanding of stem cell research and the facts and logic behind all areas of stem cell research. There are scientific reasons to disagree with embryonic stem cell research, but you would not know that from the propaganda sentence. There are types of stem cell research that are scientifically superior to embryonic stem cell research, but you would know that from the propaganda sentence. Removed.-- Getaway 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities."
Being "free" from religios or spiritual qualities?
Are religious or spiritual qualities some sort of psychological imprisonment from which we must forcefully liberate ourselves? Are they some form of slavery from which we need to be "freed?"
How about ' Secularity is the state of being without religious or spiritual qualities' - sounds less biases to me, anyway. 139.67.203.19 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've changed it slightly from
"evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs"
to
"evidence and fact, and not beliefs which secularists consider superstitious"
because the word [superstition] is not neutral, and means different things to different people. Thus is it is a fact that many secularists regard religion as being superstitious, but it is also a fact that the Church would not.
See the Wikipedia entry for superstition for more details.
It appears to me that Secularism needs to be included in the Secularity (disambiguation) article. I tried to do it (see article history) but another editor blocks all my edits.— Who123 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this merge as secularity and secularism are entirely distinct concepts (see above discussion). The former refers to a state of being not religious and the latter refers to one of many ideologies which promote this state of being in one way or another. Any up to date dictionary can verify this information, not to mention the fact that the recent good work of an editor on this entry has made the distinction clear within Wikipedia (lets not regress here). Also, as a point of information, there are several other entries like secularization which are also clearly distinct but just as related to secularity as secularism is. PelleSmith 16:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: The adjective form of "secularism" is "secularistic" and NOT "secular". This can easily be seen in at Merriam Webster Online or at Dictionary.com. PelleSmith 13:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: Let us see what your sources actually say: Merriam Webster Online - secularism = "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations". Merriam Webster Online - Secularity refers to "secular" = "not overtly or specifically religious". Merriam Webster Online does not support the distinct difference in meaning between the two forms of the word that is suggested by separate articles on WP. Dictionary.com - secularism = "1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element." Dictionary.com - Secularity = "secular views or beliefs; secularism". Dictionary.com actually equates the two terms in complete opposition to your position, rather than supporting it. — Who123 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If nobody minds, I'll give it another day or so and then remove the merge proposal, which has been up since May 16. Thanks, Mackan79 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
How is the ACLU an organization that promotes "secularism"? Go to American Civil Liberties Union and see how it clearly states that they promote a person's right to practice whatever religion that person desires. They promote religous pluralism as the "effect" of religious freedom, and not secularism. On what grounds should we include them here? PelleSmith 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The ACLU was started by communists. You know any commies that go to church?-- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the whole section be removed? I don't think the Wicca-themed section is relevant to the article. Dylan Stafne ( talk) 05:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Norway is a secular nation. Who on earth thinks its non secular? To list Norway as red together with countries such as Saudi Arabia is misleading Nastykermit ( talk)
Sounds like reframing the context of Secularism, does secularism worship a god/ deity of any sort? No, then it is no. Religions are characterized by the obedience to an external authority, in the form of writings ( Bible/ Kuran) or divine revelation mediated often through a human agent for the followers obey. Cross fingers you can trust that person.
-- 220.239.179.128 ( talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question, and although not considered as a mainstream religion, many groups, ideologies and politics have their gods. So the answer could be 'yes' in some respects.-- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There must be a section on the last religious wars in Europe (16th c?). Are UK and Ireland secular? Then why is North Ireland split on religious lines? Anwar ( talk) 15:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
~
Well as far as I know about India, I think it's a semi secular country. A complete secular country provides equal opportunities for all of its citizens without any prejudice. As we all know there have been deliberate ( many say that...) attempts to keep the religious minorites more backward and illiterate. Although India has a huge minority population, but they are under-represented in many matters. The upcoming Succhur committee report( sorry if the spelling is wrong) has revealed many facts in this regard. So India is Secular if we go by the constitution, but in reality it's not so secular. Realton 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
EAKugler ( talk) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
To further the discussion if rather slightly off-topic, can we consider the Christian Right a non-secular movement? Please put in context of the US First Amendment. Kings derived their power from God hence tyrannical ( divine right of kings ) which leads to abuse of power through political absolutism, elected representatives of government derived their power from the electorate through elections, democratically elected rather than appointed by God and thanks God.
-- 220.239.179.128 ( talk) 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see an expert add a section on the relationships between secularism and religious toleration, multiculturalism and political pluralism. A contrast with state atheism might also be in order. – Gerrit Erasmus ( talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the philosophical reasons I think Christians and their Churches have historically been opposed to Secularism is because of the religious dogma of the Incarnation. Christianity is the only religion with this particular dogma and it is often called the religion of the Incarnation. On the contrary, Jews, Muslims and Hindu/Buddhists do not have such a dogma, and therefore it is much easier to them to adhere to religious Monism, the belief in an Unknowable One, which is epistemologically very close to Secularism. For Christians to believe that Jesus is the One is, for many religions and philosophies, tantamount to denying the entire system of pluralism and secularism. There has been an ongoing dialogue on this issue since the 1970s, it needs to be featured more prominently and with relevant sources. ADM ( talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In politics, the expression secular camp is sometimes used to describe those politicians and citizens who are strong supporters of secularism. Depending on the country, it is usually estimated at 40-50 % of the population in places like France, Turkey, Spain, Israel or Italy. ADM ( talk) 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
given that Secularism is not only "the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs" - as lapidary stated at the very beginning of the article, but also a philosophical life stance with its ethics and principles (very close to modern humanism) as rightly mentioned later on, I feel that the article should be clearer on the distinction and more organically organized thereby.
The very first sentence seems too restrictive to me, and kind of an 'absolute', while the philosopical part appears here and there like casually thrown in.
That is a bit confusing to me, and not up to Wp standards.
Anyone else shares this opinion? Should the article be revised in this sense?
Cheers,
Silver 22.48 04/04/2009 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.32.205.47 (
talk)
20:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed someone removing a reference to Albert Einstein from the lead of the entry (on erroneous grounds since he seems to have been a self-professed agnostic). Another editor reverted the removal, but I'm now questioning the addition of Einstein myself on other grounds. Here is the relevant content:
Does secularism in fact have "intellectual roots" in modern agnostics like Albert Einstein? Really? Can someone back this up? Russell, Ingersoll and Dawkins certainly devoted time and attention to the issue of religion, and belief in god, but Einstein just happened to be an agnostic. Let's not misuse his fame and imply something more than that. I would also question the inclusion of Dawkins here. Dawkins has certainly been influential in the last few years amongst atheists, but this article is about secularism and not atheism. How does modern secularism have its "roots" in the writings of a very contemporary atheist? This seems to imply something else that I don't believe is true nor verifiable through reliable sources. PelleSmith ( talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The Secularity article has been changed to be a redirect to Secularism (in my opinion, that is a good idea since one encyclopedic article should be sufficient). Please see the version just before the article was made a redirect here. Perhaps there is some information from that page which would be useful here (if copy/pasting text in, please remember the WP:GFDL and include "copied from Secularity" (copied from [[Secularity]]) in the edit summary). Johnuniq ( talk) 07:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I went through the whole thing because it is a mess. Perhaps needless to say, but not only is this section completely unsourced, it is also poorly organized, careless, and appears POV with its use of terms such as "atheist government" and "liberal" in association with secularism (which is clearly Americentric), a popular but false association of Marxism with anti-religion, and unsubstantiated connections between events without any sourced documentation.
(1) Statement: Opponents argue that secular government creates more problems than it solves, and that a government with a religious (or at least not a secular) ethos is better.
(2) Statement: Some Christian opponents contend that a Christian state can give more freedom of religion than a secular one.
(3) Statement: …and yet also recognized as more progressive and liberal than some countries without such a link." and "…Iceland was among the first countries to legalise contraceptives and abortion…
(4) Statement: Some cite the counterexample of the Netherlands and, more recently, Sweden, it being both a secular state and socio-politically progressive although having disestablished its state church in 2000.
(5) Statement: Some modern commentators have criticized secularism by conflating it with anti-religious, atheistic, or even Satanic belief systems. The word secularism itself is commonly used as a pejorative by religious conservatives in the United States.
(6) Statement: Pope Benedict XVI has declared ongoing secularization to be a fundamental problem of modern society, and has made it the goal of his papacy to counteract secularism and moral relativism.
(7) Statement: Though the goal of a secularist state is to be religiously neutral, some argue that it is repressive of some aspects of religion. Ostensibly, it is equally repressive toward all religions in order to equally protect all from interference by others.
(8) Statement: William E. Connolly, a noted opponent of secularism, writes, "Secularism is not merely the division between public and private realms that allows religious diversity to flourish in the latter. It can itself be a carrier of harsh exclusions. And it secretes a new definition of "religion" that conceals some of its most problematic practices from itself."
(9) Statement: Some political philosophies, such as Marxism, generally hold that any religious influence in a state or society is negative. In nations that have officially embraced such beliefs, such as the former Eastern European Communist Bloc countries, the religious institution was made subject to the atheist state, in the public interest. Freedom to worship was subject to licensure and other restrictions, and the doctrine of the church was monitored to assure conformity to secular law, or even the official public philosophy.
(10) Statement: Ironically, although this was done to ensure public safety and stability, these governments often also used atrocities to maintain their power; events such as the Great Purge, the Cultural Revolution, and the actions of the Khmer Rouge are among many examples cited against the moral viability of purely atheist governments. In the Western democracies, it is generally agreed that these policies contravened full freedom of religion.
In the section "The secular state" is, at best, mislabeled and misplaced.
To be included as part of Secularism it should be labeled "The secularist state".
Second, it does not describe either a secular state or a secularist state.
Third, it is poorly written, research, and biased. It is an attempt to make the case for secularism by a implying reasonable people willingly acquiesce to secularist states.
It claims, without reference, "(m)ost major religions accept the primacy of the rules of secular, democratic society."
It then goes on to claim "fundamentalism opposes secularism". There is no indication there is any other opposition, although the US Constitution's First Amendment stands in opposition to secularism's bias toward atheism over other religions.
After the claim "fundamentalism opposes secularism" it points out Christianity and Islam are the two largest groups of fundamentalists. This is a non sequitur. It implies these groups are opposed, en masse. What should be included are specifics about the opposition, including the reasoning behind the opposition
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 6 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 ( talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There's only one or two edits and related citations in this page. I checked them, it checks out. The citations are legit. He hasn't misrepresented them in any way. The entire focus of the works is focused on the context in which he used them (secularism, the subject of this). It's very easy to click a link to check a source, perhaps that might be a better avenue of inquiry rather than histrionic complaining in talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.26.43 ( talk) 21:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this fits under "Problematic Examples", but "The majority of Christians are proponents of a secular state..." ought to be backed-up with a citation and/or possibly be followed by a "with noteable exception" for the U.S. While the United States is considered a large secular Christian state, polling by the Pew for the last 10 years has consistently shown a majority of Americans want churches to offer political guidance.
[1] It also seems POV to single out Christians, as if implying that other religious followers do not, by majority, back secularism. If you class Shinto, Buddhism, and Hinduism as religions, as an agnostic or ignostic might, I would guess the percentage of followers favoring a secular government would be very high. For comparison, it would be useful to have statistics for Muslim and Jewish populations, especially for those in countries which have religious-based laws, such as Saudia Arabia and Israel.
The Us is cited as a secular state. IMHO this is not the case -- DerekvG ( talk) 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
IMHO this article should be split up, and preceded by a disambiguation
-- DerekvG ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I cut the following because a bulleted list just looks bizarre in the lede. Couldn't this be converted to prose or moved elsewhere in the article?
eldamorie ( talk) 17:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
"Churches in the US are losing up to 1 million members every year. In Europe, secularization has advanced even further. The number of non-religious people, those who do not believe in God or any higher power, has reached approximately 40 percent in France and about 27 percent in Germany. "
"Sociologist Phil Zuckerman, who hopes to start a secular studies major at California's Pitzer College, says that secularists tend to be more ethical than religious people. On average, they are more commonly opposed to the death penalty, war and discrimination. And they also have fewer objections to foreigners, homosexuals, oral sex and hashish."
"Germany serves as a sort of historical case study for sociologists, thanks to the distinct differences in religious tendencies between the formerly divided east and west."
"One type finds deeper meaning in everything; even bad weather can be framed as fate. The other type is neurologically predisposed to be skeptical, and they don't put much weight in beliefs and agency detection."
It seems terribly obvious to so many people that Freemasons have been major promoters of Secularism. If valid sources can be found, it should certainly be added. ADM ( talk) 17:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Candidates for regular Freemasonry are required to declare a belief in a Supreme Being. However, the candidate is not asked to expand on, or explain, his interpretation of Supreme Being. The discussion of politics and religion is forbidden within a Masonic Lodge, in part so a Mason will not be placed in the situation of having to justify his personal interpretation. Thus, reference to the Supreme Being can mean the Christian Trinity to a Christian Mason, Allah to a Muslim Mason, Para Brahman to a Hindu Mason, etc. While most Freemasons would take the view that the term Supreme Being equates to God, others may hold a more complex or philosophical interpretation of the term. In the ritual, the Supreme Being is referred to as the Great Architect of the Universe, which alludes to the use of architectural symbolism within Freemasonry. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 14:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone above proposed adding a section to the article explaining the differences between atheism and secularism - here is my attempt:
Secularism and atheism are sometimes used interchangeably (for instance: http://prospect.org/article/one-nation-not-under-god) but they are in fact quite distinct. Atheism, simply put, is the belief that there is no god. Secularism is the stance that there should be a separation between the religious and civic spheres. It is possible for a person or an act to be secularist but not atheist, or to be an atheist but not a secularist. For instance, an atheistic organisation that campaigned for all religious expression to be banned by the state is not secularist because they want the government to become involved in the religious sphere. Equally, a devout, practising christian or muslim who believes that the state has no right to regulate religious practise beyond ensuring freedom of religious conscience is taking a secularist view.
If anyone wants to expand on that or to have a go at rewriting it be my guest. Kick the cat ( talk) 22:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Did Jesus invent secularism? I'm not saying this to shock. But consider his famous "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and unto God those things that are God's". This seems to me to be the first time a separation of Church and State has been mooted. Augustine's "City of God" would seem to elaborate on this separation. Rhinoracer 09:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The above statement takes the Bible out of context and thus distorts the clear context. The text, in context, has Jesus being asked whether the people should pay *taxes*. He asked for a coin, and asked whose inscription is on it. Someone told him "Caesar's" Immediately after that, Jesus said: "THEN [connecting it to paying taxes), give to Caesar's the things that are Caesar's [taxes], and to God the things that are God's [support your house of worship]." Simple. Concerning the below statement - Jesus isn't ambiguous, but the person who ripped it out of context makes it appear that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.240.39 ( talk) 00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The list of characteristics of a secular society given in the paragraph of the same name seems like the characteristics of a secular utopia. Wouldn't a country that forbids religion be secular too despite going against all those principles? I think this paragraph should be mostly removed, and the "The idea of a Secular Society" source put in a context that doesn't imply that all possible secular societies are like that. -- Jules.LT ( talk) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As a secularist from the lunatic fringe that attempts tolerance I was surprised to read the subsection on Interpretation of Secularism (previously Misinterpreting Secularism). The two paragraphs are sourced from outlets which will use excerpted and/or weighted material or partisan commentators for the purpose of persuasion. Concordat Watch promotes secularism. While partisans may be useful references for what they support they are not credible in their characterization of opponent’s motives and practices. I first chose to add the following two sentences at the end for context:
Misinterpreting secularism is aided by proponent authors that have opined views on religion ranging from positive and acceptable societal participants to negative and favoring active elimination for the benefit of secularism (See Secular Ethics). The latter extreme is also an apparent contradiction with the ideals expressed by D.L Munby (See Secular Society).
The language still needs work to be accurate, concise, and meet standards. I don’t know how to link the parenthetics. I was particularly concerned about adding the second sentence but it is relevant perspective that among individuals calling themselves secularists there is wider disagreement and consequently a more miss understandable image than just a dispute about religion. Tolerance itself (a Secular ideal) becomes a casualty in the practical application of political persuasion as it always does.
Two editors deleted my work. Scjessey (using the “We” offense) opined my edit was original research. Capitalismojo said he liked the article better the way it was (a compelling argument no doubt). Part of my response to these editors follows. I’ve received no arguments or comments in reply but my messages to these editors have been deleted.
As to my addition: I did not offer opposition partisan opinion. In lieu of deleting the entire subsection I added carefully edited referential only perspective with the briefest summary possible of content already contained and cited within the body of the main article and I annotated accordingly. You did not delete the content I referenced. Those cited references were not drawn together in the subsection where their relevance to the concept of “misunderstanding” was being described only in a partisan fashion. My two sentences achieved that. … I welcome your attempt.
In considering how I might (find the time to) modify my submission then defend changing the subsection I returned to the conclusion that the subsection is simple POV. It should be deleted and can’t be fixed. This metaphorical example may illustrate:
It is possible to create a subsection called “Interpretation of US Slavery” properly sourced and cited reading very similar to “Interpretation of Secularism” but replacing unhappy religious groups plotting against secularists with unhappy northern interests plotting against southern interests; including a reference from a partisan credentialed speaker describing a few of the most benevolent ideals slavery could offer rather than the same for secularism.
If crafted differently it could be fair, but an author would require more latitude than Wikipedia permits to avoid an excessively lengthy article. Either way most editors would still consider it outrageous POV drivel. Well we like secularism don’t we, and slavery … not so much. That there is no similar outrage over “Interpretation of Secularism” should alarm every Wikipedian. The content therein would be more suitable to a subsection devoted to political machinations against detractors.
Jymbr ( talk) 05:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the removal of the Irreligion sidebar from the article by an IP user. I didn't see any discussion about it on this talk page, so I'm restoring the article by undoing the edit. I know it's not irrelevant to irreligion, but I'm not sure if another sidebar might be more relevant either or if in fact the sidebar is in fact an appropriate use. I'm sure it deserves discussion and editorial advisement thought. jrun ( talk) 10:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Suggest to remove Category:Agnosticism and Category:Atheism from this article, because that's not what this article is about. Suggest to remove Category:Religion and society because Category:Secularism is already in Category:Religion and society. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed this addition about "excessive secularism" because I could find very little evidence to support it being an Actual Thing beyond a couple of controversial, India-related mentions. A Google search of the term yields very little to support the inclusion, and the use of "many" falls foul of WP:WEASEL. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Helpsome: a prior, the reference you removed seems reliable. Could you explain why you removed it? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 19:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Secularism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
By hiring representatives of Sikhism, Islam and Hinduism in one's "Durbar", does not fit the definition of secularism, or a secular form of government or society. -- Freedoomm0000 ( talk) 17:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Ibn Rushd's ideas of a secular society and the troubles that it caused for him personally should be discussed in this article (when dealing with Islam). -- Freedoomm0000 ( talk) 17:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I know secularism mean separate religion from state, And that all people are equal, regardless of their faith
this first time know that secularism means irreligion and atheism -- FPP ( talk) 01:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
discuss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.3.143 ( talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Is vegetarianism a meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.67.2 ( talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Is bald a hair color? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.130.254 ( talk) 21:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
No. It is a simple term for a kind of reasoning when governing a state. Perhaps you are confusing it with atheism? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I think there should probably be an additional commentary on Marxist secularism, i.e. on Marxist interpretations of Church-State separation. Communist countries have often been refered to as atheistic in the Western press, but at home, they considered themselves to be merely secular states, secular states that applied Marxist ideology in public life. During the 1980s, as opposed to the two-way model that currently exists between the United States and France, there was often a third-way model of secularism that was promoted in the Eastern bloc states and in the Soviet Union, which asserted the primacy of the State in all matters public, and considered religion to be a negative influence that was to be relegated to the private sphere, along with other undesirables such as capitalism. ADM ( talk) 14:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why this page is "part of" WikiProject Atheism? The idea that secularism would be part of a project on atheism seems entirely absurd. Secularity can describe quiet a bit that is not necessarily atheistic. In fact by putting secularism under an umbrella of atheism we align secularity with the theistic/atheistic dimension of the dichotemy between religion/non-religion in a very simplistic manner, as if secularity is about a freedom from the belief in a god or multiple gods, instead of a descriptor for things not religious. If anything atheism should be a part of a WikiProject called Secularism, that is "if anything". What can be done about this? Does anyone else agree that this page should not be part of WikiProject Atheism? PelleSmith 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm noticing that atheism is actually a subcategory of secularism, which I obviously think is logical. On the one hand WikiProjet Atheism claims to deal with articles "related to" atheism and secularism is clearly related to atheism. However, it still seems entirely misguided to list secularism as part of a project on atheism, which is itself a subcategory of secularism. PelleSmith 04:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No. LDS and JW are separatists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.41.160 ( talk) 21:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Secularism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
While reading our article Secularism, I noticed in the section "Secular society" the remarkable statement
While France enforces a policy of laicism, and China is officially an atheist society (which, oddly, also has state-controlled Christian denominations such as Lianghui and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church), our article State religion identifies the United Kingdom as being among those countries with a state religion, the Church of England. Specifically addressing the statement in question, the current British head of state, Elizabeth II has made many public statements over the years referencing God.
The statement would be allowable (even if counter-intuitive, because facts sometimes are), if a WP:RS reliable source were cited inline to support it. No such reference is cited inline.
The statement
makes
WP:WEASEL statements in the places I boldfaced here.
I have added inline tags to encourage other editors to either find WP:RS sources which specifically document the statements in question, cite the source(s) inline, or remove the statements as being unsourced. loupgarous ( talk) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The article had a certain elegance and intellectual audacity in giving a definition found in one dictionary and then presenting various senses of the word as its "manifestations". Unfortunately, that's not how the term is treated in the body of RSs, which present a variety of inconsistent and contested uses. There's perhaps a way to present these senses in a more orderly way, for example as Charles Taylor does in A Secular Age for "secularity": one "family" of senses centered around common institutions, practices and public spaces, and another centered on falling off religious beliefs and practices, but Secularity is a different article. Eperoton ( talk) 23:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why this passage from the Islamic Encyclopedia is in the lead. What an idea "connotes" to a group of people hostile to it should neither define it or frame it. In the same way, articles like evolution don't represent what evolution connotes to those who disagree with it in the lead. Viriditas ( talk) 21:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm not sure why there is an article here about secularism, but then, I haven't studied religion formally, and maybe it's a big topic in religious studies. At any rate, the above (I say as someone who is thoroughly nonreligious--I don't know what "God" means) really offensively biased. I wouldn't even know how to rewrite it. What does it mean to say that "most Western societies are secular"? See neutral point of view. -- LMS
I didn't write the above, but calling Western societies secular isn't biased. (The urge to convert comment maybe is though.) In sociology/studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular: meaning that they have no established or state religion, there is near-complete freedom of religion (you can believe in any religion or none at all, with little legal or social sanction), and that religion is not as important in most people's lives as it once was. -- Simon J Kissane
The statement that it is "the lowest level of religiosity" seems definitely not NPOV! Some people regarding themselves as "secularists" insist that they are not religious and that's why they call themselves that. Besides, doesn't "secular" mean "pertaining to time", as opposed to pertaining to eternity? Michael Hardy 02:48 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
(Unless i have erred, all times are UTC)
An editor has removed
and asks, as summary for that, "How does this fit here? How did anybody miss this?"
I don't know whether what was considered to not "fit" and as "missed" was the injection of PM or the implicit critique of how it was injected.
The history of that text is:
(The original sentence, BTW, was one of 4 sentences contributed by User:195.195.234.4 in their two article-creating edits related to PM, in Sept & Oct of 2003.)
My rationale for my change was that the PoV that PM has something important to say abt this subject may be relevant, but that the link is just a spam ad for PM as it stood, and that it needs being turning into something enabling the reader to better judge its relevance to their own interest. I had hoped the language i chose would function somewhat like stub boilerplate, applying to the link rather than a whole article. Given that that has not happened, i am happy to see it disappear from the article, but IMO the failure to move it to this talk page, and the uninformative and indignant summary which compounds it are counterproductive. Better it should have stayed there, saving me from this effort, but now that this talk-edit is done, IMO nothing more need be done about PM on this page, except by someone interested and informed enuf to add something amounting to "PM says not!" to the article.
(I am not in a position to say whether anything was missed by anyone other than the editor who precipitated this talk-edit by me, who missed the fact that at least i (in spite of my skepticism twd any PM critique of secularization and/or secularism), and probably at least a few other editors, disagreed with the judgement that reference to PM deserved deletion without substantive comment.)
I believe the following shouldn't be in this article (perhaps, if documented, it could be part of an article on the growing secularism of Europe and the US in the late 18th-early 19th century):
The lightning rod, for example, played a part during this period, due to the lack of its adoption by churches until the occurrence of disaster. David.Monniaux 11:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When applied to society, secularism is considered to be any of a range of situations where a society less automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for conflict in various forms, than in recent generations of the same society.
Since year 2000 there is no connection between church of sweden and the government, so I delete sweden from the list of nordic countries with offical churches. More info on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Sweden
There are movements in America which seek to unify Church and State, and that doesn't automatically mean that these movements are right.
Likewise, the mere existence of movements seeking disestablishment in Norway does not mean that these movements are right.
"It should be noted though that Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark are among the most secular countries in the world when measuring the amount of religious persons as percent of the population."
I don't understand the logic here. Does it make any sense to refer to people as secular people? Aren't they usually called atheist? or agnostic?
Is this really relevant when secularism is supposed to grant freedom of religion, rather than deliver the elimination of religion?
I'm very confused. in this article it say a secular government is a government without religion influence. However, many sites I search in the web refer the opposite, as "secular king" or "medieval secular authorities". Please someone explain. 201.8.212.191 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC) user:SSPecteR 1 november 2006
I think this could bear more discussion. "Eating a meal" was changed to "eating fast food". I thought that the change could have been intentionally insulting to secular activities (ie secular activities are like fast food compared with the proper square meal of religion!), but might also have been made on the grounds that meals are a key element of many religions. Obviously that doesn't make eating meals *inherently* religious, but in order to avoid any debate, I changed the example to "shopping". For the record, I had no problem with "eating a meal" in the first place.
However, there is a problem. And that problem is that I'm not sure that "inherently religious" is the best standard here.
For a start, "visiting a place of worship" is not inherently religious. I visit places of worship, as a tourist. So do lots of nonreligious people. So couldn't "visiting a place of worship" appear in the list of secular activities?
I don't think, really, that a "secular" activity can be adequately defined as "not inherently religious". I think there must be something more fundamental than that. -- Dannyno 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You'd have thought these were understood as part of what "secular" simply means. The bolded texts were excised by User:PelleSmith: "free from religious or spiritual qualities, assessing natural causes without reference to the supernatural--with the edit summary being free from "religious" qualities has no necessary connection to a distinction between "supernatural" and "natural" causes-- and the text "An approximate synonym for secular is worldly in the sense "of this physical world", although from a Christian or a metaphysical point of view, "secular" may be used as a contrast to "spiritual"."-- with the edit summary: the distinction between physical and meta-physical is not inherent in this defintion and puts a POV frame on the dichotemy I wonder what "POV" means in such a context? Neither the supernatural nor the metaphysical is addressed in secularism. It is just part of the definition, though perhaps User:PelleSmith has not taken a moment to consider this. Can it be new to anyone? Perhaps this editor is hazy too about " metaphysical". "POV" I assume is merely the usual club to beat us with that signifies "not to my taste". Does the editor not understand that supernatural is what is not secular, and that religion is merely part of the supernatural? Is this difficult?-- Wetman 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is also possible to be confused by reading books, or worse reviews of books, like Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers, where secularism and "freethought" at times seem synonymous. I could sum up most of my argument above by saying that Secularism in its multifarious forms should not be conflated with a philosophy like Freethought (a particular secularist ideology), however related they may be. PelleSmith 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the sentence that listed abortion, stem cell research and sex education as examples of where "decisions" are based upon religious belief. It was merely the commentary of some Wikipedian. There was NO citation given for the sentence. Also, the sentence was unclear and pointless. It referred to "decisions" but it did not point out what "decisions." It did not state who was making these decisions. The whole section was just an appendix to the section before it. I removed the POV sentence. Also, the original sentence referred to "stem cell research." The sentence did not point out who was making these strange "decisions" on what issues and it gave the completely false and misleading impression that there only one type of stem cell research, I assume the type of stem cell research that Michael J. Fox advocates. It showed a complete lack of understanding of stem cell research and the facts and logic behind all areas of stem cell research. There are scientific reasons to disagree with embryonic stem cell research, but you would not know that from the propaganda sentence. There are types of stem cell research that are scientifically superior to embryonic stem cell research, but you would know that from the propaganda sentence. Removed.-- Getaway 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities."
Being "free" from religios or spiritual qualities?
Are religious or spiritual qualities some sort of psychological imprisonment from which we must forcefully liberate ourselves? Are they some form of slavery from which we need to be "freed?"
How about ' Secularity is the state of being without religious or spiritual qualities' - sounds less biases to me, anyway. 139.67.203.19 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've changed it slightly from
"evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs"
to
"evidence and fact, and not beliefs which secularists consider superstitious"
because the word [superstition] is not neutral, and means different things to different people. Thus is it is a fact that many secularists regard religion as being superstitious, but it is also a fact that the Church would not.
See the Wikipedia entry for superstition for more details.
It appears to me that Secularism needs to be included in the Secularity (disambiguation) article. I tried to do it (see article history) but another editor blocks all my edits.— Who123 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this merge as secularity and secularism are entirely distinct concepts (see above discussion). The former refers to a state of being not religious and the latter refers to one of many ideologies which promote this state of being in one way or another. Any up to date dictionary can verify this information, not to mention the fact that the recent good work of an editor on this entry has made the distinction clear within Wikipedia (lets not regress here). Also, as a point of information, there are several other entries like secularization which are also clearly distinct but just as related to secularity as secularism is. PelleSmith 16:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: The adjective form of "secularism" is "secularistic" and NOT "secular". This can easily be seen in at Merriam Webster Online or at Dictionary.com. PelleSmith 13:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: Let us see what your sources actually say: Merriam Webster Online - secularism = "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations". Merriam Webster Online - Secularity refers to "secular" = "not overtly or specifically religious". Merriam Webster Online does not support the distinct difference in meaning between the two forms of the word that is suggested by separate articles on WP. Dictionary.com - secularism = "1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element." Dictionary.com - Secularity = "secular views or beliefs; secularism". Dictionary.com actually equates the two terms in complete opposition to your position, rather than supporting it. — Who123 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If nobody minds, I'll give it another day or so and then remove the merge proposal, which has been up since May 16. Thanks, Mackan79 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
How is the ACLU an organization that promotes "secularism"? Go to American Civil Liberties Union and see how it clearly states that they promote a person's right to practice whatever religion that person desires. They promote religous pluralism as the "effect" of religious freedom, and not secularism. On what grounds should we include them here? PelleSmith 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The ACLU was started by communists. You know any commies that go to church?-- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the whole section be removed? I don't think the Wicca-themed section is relevant to the article. Dylan Stafne ( talk) 05:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Norway is a secular nation. Who on earth thinks its non secular? To list Norway as red together with countries such as Saudi Arabia is misleading Nastykermit ( talk)
Sounds like reframing the context of Secularism, does secularism worship a god/ deity of any sort? No, then it is no. Religions are characterized by the obedience to an external authority, in the form of writings ( Bible/ Kuran) or divine revelation mediated often through a human agent for the followers obey. Cross fingers you can trust that person.
-- 220.239.179.128 ( talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question, and although not considered as a mainstream religion, many groups, ideologies and politics have their gods. So the answer could be 'yes' in some respects.-- THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There must be a section on the last religious wars in Europe (16th c?). Are UK and Ireland secular? Then why is North Ireland split on religious lines? Anwar ( talk) 15:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
~
Well as far as I know about India, I think it's a semi secular country. A complete secular country provides equal opportunities for all of its citizens without any prejudice. As we all know there have been deliberate ( many say that...) attempts to keep the religious minorites more backward and illiterate. Although India has a huge minority population, but they are under-represented in many matters. The upcoming Succhur committee report( sorry if the spelling is wrong) has revealed many facts in this regard. So India is Secular if we go by the constitution, but in reality it's not so secular. Realton 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
EAKugler ( talk) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
To further the discussion if rather slightly off-topic, can we consider the Christian Right a non-secular movement? Please put in context of the US First Amendment. Kings derived their power from God hence tyrannical ( divine right of kings ) which leads to abuse of power through political absolutism, elected representatives of government derived their power from the electorate through elections, democratically elected rather than appointed by God and thanks God.
-- 220.239.179.128 ( talk) 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see an expert add a section on the relationships between secularism and religious toleration, multiculturalism and political pluralism. A contrast with state atheism might also be in order. – Gerrit Erasmus ( talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the philosophical reasons I think Christians and their Churches have historically been opposed to Secularism is because of the religious dogma of the Incarnation. Christianity is the only religion with this particular dogma and it is often called the religion of the Incarnation. On the contrary, Jews, Muslims and Hindu/Buddhists do not have such a dogma, and therefore it is much easier to them to adhere to religious Monism, the belief in an Unknowable One, which is epistemologically very close to Secularism. For Christians to believe that Jesus is the One is, for many religions and philosophies, tantamount to denying the entire system of pluralism and secularism. There has been an ongoing dialogue on this issue since the 1970s, it needs to be featured more prominently and with relevant sources. ADM ( talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In politics, the expression secular camp is sometimes used to describe those politicians and citizens who are strong supporters of secularism. Depending on the country, it is usually estimated at 40-50 % of the population in places like France, Turkey, Spain, Israel or Italy. ADM ( talk) 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
given that Secularism is not only "the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs" - as lapidary stated at the very beginning of the article, but also a philosophical life stance with its ethics and principles (very close to modern humanism) as rightly mentioned later on, I feel that the article should be clearer on the distinction and more organically organized thereby.
The very first sentence seems too restrictive to me, and kind of an 'absolute', while the philosopical part appears here and there like casually thrown in.
That is a bit confusing to me, and not up to Wp standards.
Anyone else shares this opinion? Should the article be revised in this sense?
Cheers,
Silver 22.48 04/04/2009 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.32.205.47 (
talk)
20:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed someone removing a reference to Albert Einstein from the lead of the entry (on erroneous grounds since he seems to have been a self-professed agnostic). Another editor reverted the removal, but I'm now questioning the addition of Einstein myself on other grounds. Here is the relevant content:
Does secularism in fact have "intellectual roots" in modern agnostics like Albert Einstein? Really? Can someone back this up? Russell, Ingersoll and Dawkins certainly devoted time and attention to the issue of religion, and belief in god, but Einstein just happened to be an agnostic. Let's not misuse his fame and imply something more than that. I would also question the inclusion of Dawkins here. Dawkins has certainly been influential in the last few years amongst atheists, but this article is about secularism and not atheism. How does modern secularism have its "roots" in the writings of a very contemporary atheist? This seems to imply something else that I don't believe is true nor verifiable through reliable sources. PelleSmith ( talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The Secularity article has been changed to be a redirect to Secularism (in my opinion, that is a good idea since one encyclopedic article should be sufficient). Please see the version just before the article was made a redirect here. Perhaps there is some information from that page which would be useful here (if copy/pasting text in, please remember the WP:GFDL and include "copied from Secularity" (copied from [[Secularity]]) in the edit summary). Johnuniq ( talk) 07:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I went through the whole thing because it is a mess. Perhaps needless to say, but not only is this section completely unsourced, it is also poorly organized, careless, and appears POV with its use of terms such as "atheist government" and "liberal" in association with secularism (which is clearly Americentric), a popular but false association of Marxism with anti-religion, and unsubstantiated connections between events without any sourced documentation.
(1) Statement: Opponents argue that secular government creates more problems than it solves, and that a government with a religious (or at least not a secular) ethos is better.
(2) Statement: Some Christian opponents contend that a Christian state can give more freedom of religion than a secular one.
(3) Statement: …and yet also recognized as more progressive and liberal than some countries without such a link." and "…Iceland was among the first countries to legalise contraceptives and abortion…
(4) Statement: Some cite the counterexample of the Netherlands and, more recently, Sweden, it being both a secular state and socio-politically progressive although having disestablished its state church in 2000.
(5) Statement: Some modern commentators have criticized secularism by conflating it with anti-religious, atheistic, or even Satanic belief systems. The word secularism itself is commonly used as a pejorative by religious conservatives in the United States.
(6) Statement: Pope Benedict XVI has declared ongoing secularization to be a fundamental problem of modern society, and has made it the goal of his papacy to counteract secularism and moral relativism.
(7) Statement: Though the goal of a secularist state is to be religiously neutral, some argue that it is repressive of some aspects of religion. Ostensibly, it is equally repressive toward all religions in order to equally protect all from interference by others.
(8) Statement: William E. Connolly, a noted opponent of secularism, writes, "Secularism is not merely the division between public and private realms that allows religious diversity to flourish in the latter. It can itself be a carrier of harsh exclusions. And it secretes a new definition of "religion" that conceals some of its most problematic practices from itself."
(9) Statement: Some political philosophies, such as Marxism, generally hold that any religious influence in a state or society is negative. In nations that have officially embraced such beliefs, such as the former Eastern European Communist Bloc countries, the religious institution was made subject to the atheist state, in the public interest. Freedom to worship was subject to licensure and other restrictions, and the doctrine of the church was monitored to assure conformity to secular law, or even the official public philosophy.
(10) Statement: Ironically, although this was done to ensure public safety and stability, these governments often also used atrocities to maintain their power; events such as the Great Purge, the Cultural Revolution, and the actions of the Khmer Rouge are among many examples cited against the moral viability of purely atheist governments. In the Western democracies, it is generally agreed that these policies contravened full freedom of religion.
In the section "The secular state" is, at best, mislabeled and misplaced.
To be included as part of Secularism it should be labeled "The secularist state".
Second, it does not describe either a secular state or a secularist state.
Third, it is poorly written, research, and biased. It is an attempt to make the case for secularism by a implying reasonable people willingly acquiesce to secularist states.
It claims, without reference, "(m)ost major religions accept the primacy of the rules of secular, democratic society."
It then goes on to claim "fundamentalism opposes secularism". There is no indication there is any other opposition, although the US Constitution's First Amendment stands in opposition to secularism's bias toward atheism over other religions.
After the claim "fundamentalism opposes secularism" it points out Christianity and Islam are the two largest groups of fundamentalists. This is a non sequitur. It implies these groups are opposed, en masse. What should be included are specifics about the opposition, including the reasoning behind the opposition
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 6 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 ( talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There's only one or two edits and related citations in this page. I checked them, it checks out. The citations are legit. He hasn't misrepresented them in any way. The entire focus of the works is focused on the context in which he used them (secularism, the subject of this). It's very easy to click a link to check a source, perhaps that might be a better avenue of inquiry rather than histrionic complaining in talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.26.43 ( talk) 21:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this fits under "Problematic Examples", but "The majority of Christians are proponents of a secular state..." ought to be backed-up with a citation and/or possibly be followed by a "with noteable exception" for the U.S. While the United States is considered a large secular Christian state, polling by the Pew for the last 10 years has consistently shown a majority of Americans want churches to offer political guidance.
[1] It also seems POV to single out Christians, as if implying that other religious followers do not, by majority, back secularism. If you class Shinto, Buddhism, and Hinduism as religions, as an agnostic or ignostic might, I would guess the percentage of followers favoring a secular government would be very high. For comparison, it would be useful to have statistics for Muslim and Jewish populations, especially for those in countries which have religious-based laws, such as Saudia Arabia and Israel.
The Us is cited as a secular state. IMHO this is not the case -- DerekvG ( talk) 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
IMHO this article should be split up, and preceded by a disambiguation
-- DerekvG ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I cut the following because a bulleted list just looks bizarre in the lede. Couldn't this be converted to prose or moved elsewhere in the article?
eldamorie ( talk) 17:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
"Churches in the US are losing up to 1 million members every year. In Europe, secularization has advanced even further. The number of non-religious people, those who do not believe in God or any higher power, has reached approximately 40 percent in France and about 27 percent in Germany. "
"Sociologist Phil Zuckerman, who hopes to start a secular studies major at California's Pitzer College, says that secularists tend to be more ethical than religious people. On average, they are more commonly opposed to the death penalty, war and discrimination. And they also have fewer objections to foreigners, homosexuals, oral sex and hashish."
"Germany serves as a sort of historical case study for sociologists, thanks to the distinct differences in religious tendencies between the formerly divided east and west."
"One type finds deeper meaning in everything; even bad weather can be framed as fate. The other type is neurologically predisposed to be skeptical, and they don't put much weight in beliefs and agency detection."
It seems terribly obvious to so many people that Freemasons have been major promoters of Secularism. If valid sources can be found, it should certainly be added. ADM ( talk) 17:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Candidates for regular Freemasonry are required to declare a belief in a Supreme Being. However, the candidate is not asked to expand on, or explain, his interpretation of Supreme Being. The discussion of politics and religion is forbidden within a Masonic Lodge, in part so a Mason will not be placed in the situation of having to justify his personal interpretation. Thus, reference to the Supreme Being can mean the Christian Trinity to a Christian Mason, Allah to a Muslim Mason, Para Brahman to a Hindu Mason, etc. While most Freemasons would take the view that the term Supreme Being equates to God, others may hold a more complex or philosophical interpretation of the term. In the ritual, the Supreme Being is referred to as the Great Architect of the Universe, which alludes to the use of architectural symbolism within Freemasonry. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 14:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone above proposed adding a section to the article explaining the differences between atheism and secularism - here is my attempt:
Secularism and atheism are sometimes used interchangeably (for instance: http://prospect.org/article/one-nation-not-under-god) but they are in fact quite distinct. Atheism, simply put, is the belief that there is no god. Secularism is the stance that there should be a separation between the religious and civic spheres. It is possible for a person or an act to be secularist but not atheist, or to be an atheist but not a secularist. For instance, an atheistic organisation that campaigned for all religious expression to be banned by the state is not secularist because they want the government to become involved in the religious sphere. Equally, a devout, practising christian or muslim who believes that the state has no right to regulate religious practise beyond ensuring freedom of religious conscience is taking a secularist view.
If anyone wants to expand on that or to have a go at rewriting it be my guest. Kick the cat ( talk) 22:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Did Jesus invent secularism? I'm not saying this to shock. But consider his famous "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's, and unto God those things that are God's". This seems to me to be the first time a separation of Church and State has been mooted. Augustine's "City of God" would seem to elaborate on this separation. Rhinoracer 09:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The above statement takes the Bible out of context and thus distorts the clear context. The text, in context, has Jesus being asked whether the people should pay *taxes*. He asked for a coin, and asked whose inscription is on it. Someone told him "Caesar's" Immediately after that, Jesus said: "THEN [connecting it to paying taxes), give to Caesar's the things that are Caesar's [taxes], and to God the things that are God's [support your house of worship]." Simple. Concerning the below statement - Jesus isn't ambiguous, but the person who ripped it out of context makes it appear that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.240.39 ( talk) 00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The list of characteristics of a secular society given in the paragraph of the same name seems like the characteristics of a secular utopia. Wouldn't a country that forbids religion be secular too despite going against all those principles? I think this paragraph should be mostly removed, and the "The idea of a Secular Society" source put in a context that doesn't imply that all possible secular societies are like that. -- Jules.LT ( talk) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As a secularist from the lunatic fringe that attempts tolerance I was surprised to read the subsection on Interpretation of Secularism (previously Misinterpreting Secularism). The two paragraphs are sourced from outlets which will use excerpted and/or weighted material or partisan commentators for the purpose of persuasion. Concordat Watch promotes secularism. While partisans may be useful references for what they support they are not credible in their characterization of opponent’s motives and practices. I first chose to add the following two sentences at the end for context:
Misinterpreting secularism is aided by proponent authors that have opined views on religion ranging from positive and acceptable societal participants to negative and favoring active elimination for the benefit of secularism (See Secular Ethics). The latter extreme is also an apparent contradiction with the ideals expressed by D.L Munby (See Secular Society).
The language still needs work to be accurate, concise, and meet standards. I don’t know how to link the parenthetics. I was particularly concerned about adding the second sentence but it is relevant perspective that among individuals calling themselves secularists there is wider disagreement and consequently a more miss understandable image than just a dispute about religion. Tolerance itself (a Secular ideal) becomes a casualty in the practical application of political persuasion as it always does.
Two editors deleted my work. Scjessey (using the “We” offense) opined my edit was original research. Capitalismojo said he liked the article better the way it was (a compelling argument no doubt). Part of my response to these editors follows. I’ve received no arguments or comments in reply but my messages to these editors have been deleted.
As to my addition: I did not offer opposition partisan opinion. In lieu of deleting the entire subsection I added carefully edited referential only perspective with the briefest summary possible of content already contained and cited within the body of the main article and I annotated accordingly. You did not delete the content I referenced. Those cited references were not drawn together in the subsection where their relevance to the concept of “misunderstanding” was being described only in a partisan fashion. My two sentences achieved that. … I welcome your attempt.
In considering how I might (find the time to) modify my submission then defend changing the subsection I returned to the conclusion that the subsection is simple POV. It should be deleted and can’t be fixed. This metaphorical example may illustrate:
It is possible to create a subsection called “Interpretation of US Slavery” properly sourced and cited reading very similar to “Interpretation of Secularism” but replacing unhappy religious groups plotting against secularists with unhappy northern interests plotting against southern interests; including a reference from a partisan credentialed speaker describing a few of the most benevolent ideals slavery could offer rather than the same for secularism.
If crafted differently it could be fair, but an author would require more latitude than Wikipedia permits to avoid an excessively lengthy article. Either way most editors would still consider it outrageous POV drivel. Well we like secularism don’t we, and slavery … not so much. That there is no similar outrage over “Interpretation of Secularism” should alarm every Wikipedian. The content therein would be more suitable to a subsection devoted to political machinations against detractors.
Jymbr ( talk) 05:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the removal of the Irreligion sidebar from the article by an IP user. I didn't see any discussion about it on this talk page, so I'm restoring the article by undoing the edit. I know it's not irrelevant to irreligion, but I'm not sure if another sidebar might be more relevant either or if in fact the sidebar is in fact an appropriate use. I'm sure it deserves discussion and editorial advisement thought. jrun ( talk) 10:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Suggest to remove Category:Agnosticism and Category:Atheism from this article, because that's not what this article is about. Suggest to remove Category:Religion and society because Category:Secularism is already in Category:Religion and society. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed this addition about "excessive secularism" because I could find very little evidence to support it being an Actual Thing beyond a couple of controversial, India-related mentions. A Google search of the term yields very little to support the inclusion, and the use of "many" falls foul of WP:WEASEL. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Helpsome: a prior, the reference you removed seems reliable. Could you explain why you removed it? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 19:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Secularism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
By hiring representatives of Sikhism, Islam and Hinduism in one's "Durbar", does not fit the definition of secularism, or a secular form of government or society. -- Freedoomm0000 ( talk) 17:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Ibn Rushd's ideas of a secular society and the troubles that it caused for him personally should be discussed in this article (when dealing with Islam). -- Freedoomm0000 ( talk) 17:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I know secularism mean separate religion from state, And that all people are equal, regardless of their faith
this first time know that secularism means irreligion and atheism -- FPP ( talk) 01:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
discuss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.3.143 ( talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Is vegetarianism a meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.67.2 ( talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Is bald a hair color? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.130.254 ( talk) 21:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
No. It is a simple term for a kind of reasoning when governing a state. Perhaps you are confusing it with atheism? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I think there should probably be an additional commentary on Marxist secularism, i.e. on Marxist interpretations of Church-State separation. Communist countries have often been refered to as atheistic in the Western press, but at home, they considered themselves to be merely secular states, secular states that applied Marxist ideology in public life. During the 1980s, as opposed to the two-way model that currently exists between the United States and France, there was often a third-way model of secularism that was promoted in the Eastern bloc states and in the Soviet Union, which asserted the primacy of the State in all matters public, and considered religion to be a negative influence that was to be relegated to the private sphere, along with other undesirables such as capitalism. ADM ( talk) 14:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why this page is "part of" WikiProject Atheism? The idea that secularism would be part of a project on atheism seems entirely absurd. Secularity can describe quiet a bit that is not necessarily atheistic. In fact by putting secularism under an umbrella of atheism we align secularity with the theistic/atheistic dimension of the dichotemy between religion/non-religion in a very simplistic manner, as if secularity is about a freedom from the belief in a god or multiple gods, instead of a descriptor for things not religious. If anything atheism should be a part of a WikiProject called Secularism, that is "if anything". What can be done about this? Does anyone else agree that this page should not be part of WikiProject Atheism? PelleSmith 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm noticing that atheism is actually a subcategory of secularism, which I obviously think is logical. On the one hand WikiProjet Atheism claims to deal with articles "related to" atheism and secularism is clearly related to atheism. However, it still seems entirely misguided to list secularism as part of a project on atheism, which is itself a subcategory of secularism. PelleSmith 04:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No. LDS and JW are separatists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.41.160 ( talk) 21:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Secularism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
While reading our article Secularism, I noticed in the section "Secular society" the remarkable statement
While France enforces a policy of laicism, and China is officially an atheist society (which, oddly, also has state-controlled Christian denominations such as Lianghui and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church), our article State religion identifies the United Kingdom as being among those countries with a state religion, the Church of England. Specifically addressing the statement in question, the current British head of state, Elizabeth II has made many public statements over the years referencing God.
The statement would be allowable (even if counter-intuitive, because facts sometimes are), if a WP:RS reliable source were cited inline to support it. No such reference is cited inline.
The statement
makes
WP:WEASEL statements in the places I boldfaced here.
I have added inline tags to encourage other editors to either find WP:RS sources which specifically document the statements in question, cite the source(s) inline, or remove the statements as being unsourced. loupgarous ( talk) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The article had a certain elegance and intellectual audacity in giving a definition found in one dictionary and then presenting various senses of the word as its "manifestations". Unfortunately, that's not how the term is treated in the body of RSs, which present a variety of inconsistent and contested uses. There's perhaps a way to present these senses in a more orderly way, for example as Charles Taylor does in A Secular Age for "secularity": one "family" of senses centered around common institutions, practices and public spaces, and another centered on falling off religious beliefs and practices, but Secularity is a different article. Eperoton ( talk) 23:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why this passage from the Islamic Encyclopedia is in the lead. What an idea "connotes" to a group of people hostile to it should neither define it or frame it. In the same way, articles like evolution don't represent what evolution connotes to those who disagree with it in the lead. Viriditas ( talk) 21:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)