Scholars seek to reclaim a dirty word: secularism

[cbayer]

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/22/scholars-seek-to-reclaim-a-dirty-word-secularism/

Kimberly Winston | Feb 22, 2013

(RNS) A conference at Georgetown University in Washington this week focused on cleaning up what many Americans consider a dirty word — secularism.

The goal of the conference, called “Secularism on the Edge,” was, in part, to define what secularism is and what it is not. It drew participants from France, Israel and the United States — all countries with strong secular and religious strains.

“(Secularism) is a guarantee of two things: freedom of religion and freedom from religion,” said Jacques Berlinerblau, a Georgetown professor, conference organizer, and author of “How to be Secular.”

“In a perfect world, it balances the citizen’s need of those two fundamental rights.”

more at link

[tanyev]

1. About time.

I remember to this day the first time I heard the phrase "secular humanism" uttered with loathing and disgust. I was overhearing a conversation in a Dallas restaurant in the mid 80s. A friend and I were in Dallas for a couple months doing our student teaching in our senior year of college. I remember thinking I couldn't wait to get back to Austin and away from all the wacko nutjobs in Dallas. How little I understood what was about to happen.

[cbayer]

2. I think many of these terms are being too narrowly defined and attributed to

certain groups.

OTOH, I think there is less knee jerk negative reaction as well.

[Phillip McCleod]

3. by 'certain groups' you mean who exactly?

[cbayer]

4. There has been a trend towards association secularism with atheism or other non-believing

groups. Religious people and groups can be secularists as well.

[Phillip McCleod]

5. did atheists take secularism away?

or did the religious neglect it?

[cbayer]

6. Neither. I think it just became a default and the general public accepted that.

Why?

[Phillip McCleod]

7. that's what i'm asking.

when the keys to the future are are tossed away in yet another fit of revivalism, it defaults to those who don't abandon the ideal. who keep it and preserve it, not for ourselves, but because it's important.

[cbayer]

8. Actually, there has been very little active secular challenges since the religious right

burst on the scene. The negligence came from both believers and non-believers. It is a relatively recent resurgence in activity from organizations concerned about separation issues from both religious and non-religious groups that are bringing the challenges.

Though some groups adopted the label, they were not activists. Now that there is more activist activity, the definition needs to be reiterated.

I still don't see your point.

[Phillip McCleod]

9. the atheist movement is recent because

if 'secularism' is a bad word, just imagine how it feels to know one is certainly 'atheist'? our support for any cause is a plague. we have been unwelcome. if recently that changed and suddenly the religious but secular realized that the word was slipping 'away' from them, when really it went nowhere. we have been steadfast in our support for secularism and that is why it has become associated with our broader effort to not be social pariahs. nothing more is going on.

[cbayer]

10. That is changing, in large part because of the activities of organizations that address secularism

and the separation issues. As has been pointed out previously, there was a time when support by atheist groups was rejected, but the advances in that area are noted here frequently.

So good for those organizations and any organizations that want to reclaim the definition and use it to address many of the problems that have been created by the religious, whether they be religious or non-religious.

[struggle4progress]

11. The Dallas rightwingers had been bashing "secular humanism" for years by then

[tanyev]

12. Yeah, I know that now.

But I had been attending college in beautiful, liberal, Austin and politics was pretty low on the list of things I was paying attention to.

[Jim__]

13. There is a difference between "secular humanism" and "secularism".

I think one of the problems with the word secularism is that it has come to be accepted as equivalent to secular humanism. Religious people have an understandable aversion to secular humnaism. You can look at the home page for the Council for Secular Humanism to get an idea of some of the objections. For instance, an excerpt from their introduction:

...

For many, mere atheism (the absence of belief in gods and the supernatural) or agnosticism (the view that such questions cannot be answered) aren’t enough.

Atheism and agnosticism are silent on larger questions of values and meaning. If Meaning in life is not ordained from on high, what small-m meanings can we work out among ourselves? If eternal life is an illusion, how can we make the most of our only lives? As social beings sharing a godless world, how should we coexist?

For the questions that remain unanswered after we’ve cleared our minds of gods and souls and spirits, many atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and freethinkers turn to secular humanism.

If secularism is accepted as synonymous with a rejection of gods and souls and spirits, it's understandable that religious people reject it.

[LeftishBrit]

14. I think that some people equate 'secularism' with 'state atheism'

To most secularists, the state should not in fact be in the business of pushing either a religion or atheism.

[cbayer]

15. I had not heard that before.

Agree that the bind that ties secularists is their belief in separation, whether they are believers or not.