What “secular” means (redux)

13 December 2008

Welcome redditors! Please feel free to leave a comment, especially if you disagree.

It appears that I was being somewhat culturally naÃ¯ve when I made the first version of this diagram. However, in an increasingly religiously diverse world, I thought it needed to be updated, especially since the retarded meme of a “war on christmas” is gaining more and more traction and increasing the exposure to false concepts of secularism.

So, this is an updated version of my original chart. Of course, I haven’t included all the daft, inaccurate or downright deceitful ideas of what “secular” means, but it should be simple enough to get the gist of the idea.

What "secular" means

Are you getting it yet?

And, just in case you were wondering what a lack of secularism would mean for your community, it would most likely manifest itself in either (best case) religious privilege (although not necessarily your religion) or (worst case) theocracy (again, not necessarily of your particular religion).

When the state endorses religion over it’s citizens, those of us that don’t subscribe to those religions lose our rights of conscience. Only secularism allows us all that freedom.

Edit: And, yes, ‘atheism’ is spelled wrong in the last panel on purpose… some people…

Possibly related posts:

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: chart, follow-up, reality, secularism

Comments

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

58642 ResponsesWhat+%22secular%22+means+%28redux%292008-12-13+21%3A50%3A59nullifidian to “What “secular” means (redux)”

Diagoras of Melos on December 14th, 2008 2:32 am

Uhm, exqueez me, but it should read "ATHEISM", not "ATHIESM".
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 2:42 am

Indeed it should, but the number of times I've seen the bungling use of "athiesm" when complaining about so-called atheist/secular conspiracies really did inspire me mock it.
What Is Secularism? « Homosecular Gaytheist (and friends!) on December 14th, 2008 4:35 am

[...] Is Secularism? Nullifidian has a good chart explaining what secularism [...]
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 9:19 am

Why is "Jew" not capitalized?
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 9:23 am

Is there any reason why it should be?
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 9:28 am

It is a proper noun:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jew

The only time it is lower case is as a slur (which you are clearly not using.) I'm guessing that you aren't a native speaker of English, so you should know that ethnic groups and nationalities are always capitalized: Germans, Kurds, Inuits, etc.
rob on December 14th, 2008 9:38 am

Very nice.
Simon P on December 14th, 2008 9:52 am

You will note that 'muslims' and 'christians' are likewise not capitalised as is normal practice. There is no insult here. Please return your outrage to the upright position….
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 9:58 am

Also, as pointed out in an e-mail, "Christian" and "Muslim" are not capitalized, as they should be. I also simply don't understand why "Jews" would be associated with a crescent and star and "believers" with a Magen David (Star of David.) What does this even mean? The more I think about it, the more unintelligible it is.
Kris on December 14th, 2008 10:01 am

none of the religions are capitalized, you must have a jewish bias.
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 10:06 am

No, you're correct in that I'm not using it as a slur as defined by the dictionary link you provided.

In clarification to your question, I don't especially regard "jews" as either a nationality (not all Israelis are jewish, nor are all self-proclaimed jews Israeli) nor an ethnic group/race (exactly how does "ethnicity" transfer simply by having a mother of that "ethnicity"? Is it somehow a biological trait to be "jewish"?). Saying that, race is one of those topics that I don't either deal in at all as it's too artificially contrived and demarcated with respect to reality to be of any useful merit. In the same way I wouldn't label people with capitalised, for example, Blonds, Bipeds or Whites.

Neither of these two terms are even under consideration here.

If it's because they're (ostensibly) adherents to judaism (i.e. the meaning that I am using) then I afford that the same status as islam, christianity, social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, fascism, communism and any other ideology in the bazaar of ideas. None of these are capitalised or are deserving of 'proper noun' status by my standard. This goes for 'atheism', 'humanism', etc. as well.

Purely cultural jews (i.e. those who have something that they consider a "jewish" heritage) are, well, not something that I have any particular interest in but I suspect that their reason for calling themselves such has had at least some input from the definitions above.

I am, however, a native English speaker and usually do follow the norms of the language. However—to make a point—there are times where I disagree and, where I deem it appropriate, I'll write words how I feel they best represent my opinion of them.
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 10:07 am

No, you're correct in that I'm not using it as a slur as defined by the dictionary link you provided.

In clarification to your question, I don't especially regard "jews" as either a nationality (not all Israelis are jewish, nor are all self-proclaimed jews Israeli) nor an ethnic group/race (exactly how does "ethnicity" transfer simply by having a mother of that "ethnicity"? Is it somehow a biological trait to be "jewish"?). Saying that, race is one of those topics that I don't either deal in at all as it's too artificially contrived and demarcated with respect to reality to be of any useful merit. In the same way I wouldn't label people with capitalised, for example, Blonds, Bipeds or Whites.

Neither of these two terms are even under consideration here.

If it's because they're (ostensibly) adherents to judaism (i.e. the meaning that I am using) then I afford that the same status as islam, christianity, social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, fascism, communism and any other ideology in the bazaar of ideas. None of these are capitalised or are deserving of 'proper noun' status by my standard. This goes for 'atheism', 'humanism', etc. as well.

Purely cultural jews (i.e. those who have something that they consider a "jewish" heritage) are, well, not something that I have any particular interest in but I suspect that their reason for calling themselves such has had at least some input from the definitions above. I'm ambivalent about this.

I am, however, a native English speaker and usually do follow the norms of the language. However—to make a point—there are times where I disagree and, where I deem it appropriate, I'll write words how I feel they best represent my opinion of them.
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 10:10 am

As I pointed out, I was concerned with Jews as an ethnic group; that is why I noticed them. I don't even know what "jewish bias" [sic] is supposed to mean.
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 10:11 am

I've explained my lack of capitalisation in another reply.

Look to the image below the label, not above. It might make more sense. Hopefully.
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 10:11 am

As I explicitly wrote above, I know that he's not using it as a slur. Please return your outrage to the upright position.
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 10:18 am

Nationality is not determined entirely by ethnicity or national law. As long as Jews recognize themselves as a people, that constitutes their nationality. Your question about ethnic biological traits is confusing: there certainly are biological bases for ethnicity.

I don't know that this is the best forum for reviewing it, but your esoteric definition and rejection of the concept of nationality is thoroughly confusing to me. I suppose there is some merit in a principled stand in favor of mis-capitalization and misspelling, but in this case, it's nonsense to me. Thanks for taking the time to explain it nonetheless.
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 10:20 am

Genius. I'm clearly not too good at looking at things. Thanks.
Anne on December 14th, 2008 10:25 am

You spelled "atheism" wrong.
atheists for jesus on December 14th, 2008 10:28 am

No comment
Simon P on December 14th, 2008 10:37 am

The fact that you are unable to view a simple diagram without confusion demonstrates why you would find the author's lucid and logical clarification 'esoteric' and 'thoroughly confusing'.

On the other hand, a statement such as this "As long as Jews recognize themselves as a people, that constitutes their nationality." IS nonsense. You need to do some reading on what constitutes a people, a nation,an ethnic group and how groups of people self-identify.
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 10:41 am

For the record, I would (briefly) define nationality as being an acknowleged member of and under the aegis of a recognised nation state, of which I consider the modern state of Israel as one—the people therein I would (apparently correctly) happily call Israelis. With this in mind, I don't recognise religious jews' self-imposed grouping as any kind of 'nationality', just as I wouldn't recognise any other self-imposed in-group/out-group distinction as a nationality simply because they seem to claim a shared outlook, e.g. punks, amish, lesbians.

This is definitely not the correct forum for a discussion of this, and I'm not going to argue it here. Jews appear to be singular (at least when compared to other religious groups) in that they (also) lay claim to ancient nationalism, heritage, "culture" (which I consider a tricky concept at best) and a bit of land in the desert on the eastern edge of the Med. However, as I only make any kind of comment on this blog of religious judaism (the other aspects of it—whatever 'it' is—don't concern or interest me) I will continue to label them as I do.

Thanks for the discussion though. I have mentioned it elsewhere here, but not in so much detail.
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 10:48 am

The fact that you are unable to put spaces between all your words and punctuation symbols demonstrates why you can't understand national identity. See, for instance, the fourth definition of "people" according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (but what do they know?):

the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.

Jews are a nation; they are literally the definition of a nation. Being Israeli is irrelevant, as most Jews aren't and only 80% of Israelis are Jewish. They are bound together by a common identity (not even a common religion, as there are secular and humanistic Jews.) Clearly, you need to read more about Jewish identity. If you want a simple introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew

You're also a dismissive and rude person who could review simple charity and manners, especially before you write claptrap. The author and yourself are entirely free to ascribe whatever meaning you want to whatever word you want, but when you make claims of the sort "Jews are not a nation," you are simply wrong. I have no beef with the author for his views and I don't believe he has one with me for dissenting, so I'm surprised that you have so much emotional investment in being rude in a blog comment.
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 10:48 am

Yup :-)
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 10:48 am

Nicely done. ;-)
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 14th, 2008 10:52 am

For your own edification, I would like to point out that there is a strong Hindu nationalist movement (e.g. on Wikipedia you can read about Hindutva, the BJP, etc.), and India is approximately as Hindu as Israeli is Jewish, but otherwise, you are correct about Jews' nationalism being unlike Buddhists, Christians, or Muslims, which are evangelistic and trans-national.

Again, thanks for your clarification and remedial assistance in reading your graph.
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 11:02 am

Thanks for that. I'm (albeit very vaguely) aware of the movement, but hindus (again uncapitalised and considered purely as a religious group wthin the context of this blog) don't get much of a look-in around these parts.
Ryan Boughter on December 14th, 2008 11:03 am

Nicely done except for the last panel. I for some reason read that as "What some atheists believe "secular" means…" and was impressed with the completeness of your rundown. But now that I see you've focused solely on the religious in this, and not on the other side, I'm slightly less impressed (and can see why this made Reddit).

Good post none-the-less.
nullifidian on December 14th, 2008 11:14 am

That's definitely a fair point, and I did have an internal debate with myself as to whether that's how I should present it. As you rightly point out, I could have replaced "believers" with any other group (including "atheists" or even a simple "people") but atheists and secularists (there is a difference, and I am aware of what that is) get enough stick, especially in the USA (not my primary audience, but most visitors appear to be from there) and this was aimed more at believers rather than non-believers who appear, in my experience, to have more of an understanding of the need for secularity.

I guess I was just framing this so that any believers that saw it might take at least think twice.
Ryan Boughter on December 14th, 2008 11:21 am

Ah fair enough. Being religious I know the bone-headedness in that community. Many of us could definitely use a little lesson on history (especially here in the US) and the perks associated with secularism (everywhere). Thanks for a religious-based post that doesn't offend =)
meneame.net on December 14th, 2008 10:45 pm

Lo que realmente significa "laicismo"…

Un cuadro que ilustra lo que realmente significa el laicismo dentro de una diversidad religiosa. [Eng] Visto en Reddit…
Justin Anthony Knapp on December 15th, 2008 1:11 am

Blondes (probably?) do not recognize themselves as a people and idiots don't self-identify as such at all. I don't see how these are relevant. Again, feel free to use whatever denigration or specialization of English you'd like, but your examples are bombast. I suppose I would simply caution you – at the risk of being pedantic, which is not my intent – that you will confuse and frustrate others the more that you use your own personal variety of English and to the extent that you do that, you undermine the very purpose of language.

I have no idea why you think I consider myself of the Jewish Nation, especially since statements like "Jews recognize themselves as a people" rather than "we recognize…"

As you rightly point out, this is secondary to the argument made by the author, which is essentially right – clearly *some* Christians (in particular, I'm thinking of many fundamentalists, evangelicals, and conservative Catholics) think of the term secular as essentially meaning anti-Christian. That is nonsense – the word does not mean that. In another way, though, that is exactly what my argument has been – some evangelical can claim that "secular = anti-Christian;" he is wrong. Someone else can claim that Jews are not a nation. He is also wrong. This is part of a pluralistic society and I think it's fine and well as far as it goes.

As an aside, I think it's curious that interlocutors have assumed I am a Jew or have a pro-Jewish bias or identify as a Jew. For that matter, it is also curious that someone would assume my identity to post anti-Semitic jokes. Viva pluralism and c'est la vie, I suppose.
nullifidian on December 15th, 2008 1:19 am

I didn't take care to compare poster IP addresses for that "joke" that was assigned to you. Apologies, and I've now deleted that comment on your behalf. Sockpuppets and spoofers are not welcome here.
Peter on December 15th, 2008 2:05 am

I'm calling shennanigans. If what you're talking about is Christmas, then it's secularization does mean a cross with an X through it. People want the holiday, but it has for centuries been recognized as a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the secularization of Christmas directly means cutting Jesus out of the holiday. And don't give me any bullshit about how Christians stole a pagan holiday for Christmas. Fine, it was religulized (or whatever you want to call it when a religion borrows something), and now it has been secularized. But celebrating Christmas (the Christ Mass) without Jesus, is not "no comment". It is a deliberate appropriation of a Christian holiday, but with the Christ cut out.
Ash on December 15th, 2008 2:16 am

The "Christ" in Christmas has about as much relevance as the "Thor" in "Thursday".
James Jones on December 15th, 2008 2:53 am

Hmm, I think you hit the nail on the head dude.

JEss
http://www.privacy.de.tc
Sorry on December 15th, 2008 5:10 am

C-C-Combo breaker
nullifidian on December 15th, 2008 8:04 am

You call what you like. It's got fuck all to do with christmas apart from the likes of Bill O'Falafel coming out and talking shit about what secularism isn't.
nullifidian on December 15th, 2008 8:05 am

Indeed.
The Barefoot Bum on December 15th, 2008 12:25 pm

Peter: And don’t give me any bullshit about how Christians stole a pagan holiday for Christmas.

*snicker* People usually take more pains to hide their hypocrisy.

Remember too that important parts of the Christian *religion* are lifted whole from earlier religions. Can you say “Mithras”? Sure, I knew you could.

Christian believers, not secularists or non-Christians, have made Christmas a *legal* holiday and an important social construct in a society that explicitly forbids the establishment of a religion in its Constitution. If Christians are unhappy that their holiday has been secularized, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Beren on December 15th, 2008 12:52 pm

What a mean spirited load of eye scratching, although Simon is equally rude and antagonistic.

My two cents: Israel is a nation. Judaism is a belief system. I tend not to capitalise "Jewish" or "Christian" either in a similar justification to nullifications "Blonde" or my example of "Idiots". However in many ways they are poorly defined terms that often have (as noted) multiple often conflicting meanings and the delineation between proper and common nouns can be minimal to non-existant.

Indeed a single word may be properly considered to be both a common and a proper noun at the same time – isn't english wonderful? As always the author gets final say – live with it.

JAK, I am happy for you to consider yourself of the Jewish Nation (look lots of capitals for you) and Simon can consider it a load of Crap.

It shits me to tears that people are willing to argue over the most interpretive and unimportant grammatical issues when they could actually deal with the semantics of the argument.

Yay for the internet.

Beren.
Johnny on December 16th, 2008 9:02 am

I am outraged that you failed to put periods at the ends of your declarative sentences, as is the convention. Do you not realize the (likely unintended) insult this is to Grammarians?
Paul on August 10th, 2009 10:00 pm

You are, in a word: contradiction.

"… stupidity of the catholic church and the retarded …"