The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Secular = Anti-Christian?

When did the word "secular" come to mean "anti-christian"? Also, when did it become a bad thing to be a secular person or live in a secular society? Can I blame this on Bill O'Reilly?

Miriam Webster defines "secular" as, "not overtly or specifically religious, not bound by monastic vows or rules," which seems to be fairly self explanatory. It's not religious, not anti-religious. There is a difference that the O'Reillys of the world can't seem to get into their heads.

If people were anti-religious, we would be saying that we oppose to celebrating Christmas in your homes, that there will be no Christmas songs on the radio or decorations in supermarkets or malls. We would try to close your churches, keep you from praying, and certainly not allow "...under God" in the Pledge. The Ten Commandments would be right out, disallowed in every public forum and private home. That would be anti-religious.

Secular means equality in the public arena. It means that everyone has equal representation and everyone, regardless of belief, is included in the goings-on of the State. Secular does not mean "atheist" - I am an atheist and I am openly against religion; I think that it does harm to society and the world in general and we would be far better off to be rid of it all. If "secular" was analagous to my thinking, Christianity would most definitely have a "war" on its hands. As it is, secular governments will protect their rights as well as all other citizens. But that isn't enough for the Fundies or evangelicals; they want to retain their special spot and their prime real-estate on the top of the mountain. Seeing it crumble is making them tremble a tad, and it's only going to get worse.

1 Barbaric Yawps:

At 23/12/05 8:18 am, Blogger franky said...

Yea, that's a good point Mike

 

Post a Comment

<< Home