Talk:Secular religions/Archive1

Heh!
Heh! Like it! (Not to mention "Evolutionism as a word") 11:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Objectivism
As a former Objectivist, I can say that it nearly meets any definition you'd like of a religion. It has a founder, a set of dogma (more dogmatic, in fact, than most forms of Christianity), and even supernatural characters. (They don't call them that, but it's obvious that Aristotle is God, Aquinas is Moses, and Rand is herself Jesus, while Plato, Augustine, and Kant are all the Devil.) If nothing else, it should count as a secular cult. Researcher 18:02, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Employment discrimination
In the UK, all manner of beliefs or lack thereof have been legally counted as "religious" for purposes of employment discrimination cases (e.g.. Although I suspect these wouldn't pass either in normative or sociology of religion terms, they should be noted here - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Does secular religion exist" section
This is a pretty badly argued section, and it's overall not a very convincing article either.
 * However, those using functional rather than a substantive definition of religion would argue that whether the nature of the belief is supernatural or theistic is irrelevant, so a secular religion is possible.

This statement is silly because if you're talking about "secular religion" then you're using a "functional" understanding of religion by definition. Earlier on we have this:
 * Religions invariably include a belief in some form of supernatural beings, force or deity at work in the world, and usually involve specific activities including worship and ritual ceremonies.

This conflates the two definitions haphazardly, and is also very questionable. Firstly, why does religion "invariably" include this kind of belief? This is a distinctly Eurocentric claim based on a post-Reformation understanding of what "religion" means. Secondly, why is it "invariably" incorporated in a belief but only "usually" to do with specific activities? (The sociological consensus is pretty much the exact opposite -- there are some types of belief that "usually" characterize what we understand as religion, but ritual is inherent to it.) More generally, saying that A "invariably" includes B and therefore A cannot include B is tautologically shuffling definitions around and doesn't make "A including B" a useless concept.

Returning to the last paragraph, we have:
 * The concept of 'secular religion' is a paradox, since anything secular is, by definition, not religious, and if it becomes religious it ceases to be secular.

This statement (and the one after it) is verging on being a PRATT as far as sociology of religion is concerned. Yes, it is true that the public secular sphere has been defined in the West in juxtaposition to the private religious sphere, but this has no bearing at all on whether secular attitudes can in fact be considered using the interpretative apparatus usually applied to religion. If they can, then it's pretty arbitrary to beat around the bush by calling it "quasi-religious". --Lord Shang (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

New atheism proselytizing -- atheism as a religion.
How does the new atheist who tries to convince people to abandon faith or who argues that belief systems other than her own are universally a bad thing not, in the words of this article, "mimic the forms of religious institutions"? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've wondered that myself. I don't spend time trying to convince people that Loch Ness, or Ghosts do not exist.  When you hold there is no god, and go about your business the same way you do about Santa, or Loch Ness that's one thing.  But when you activly try to change the mind of those who believe, are you not proselytizing?  And isn't your "lack of belief" now something more?--[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans  16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)