Can secularism be a religion?

Re: Can secularism be a religion?


Of course non-religion cannot be "a religion". Romney sounds like a tard.

Still, there are some who capitalize the word 'athiest'.

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in Anyone.

I rest my case.

I think when taken in context of the 3rd or 4th definition anything done with zeal and ardor can be construed as a religion.

I think that's too much of a stretch.

<<place>>`

Based on the definitions of "secular" I'd say Mitt Romney is an idiot.

He didn't say secular, he said securlarism.

There is a movement which has been gaining momentum in the last few decades, although i couldn't say whether or not it were gaining adherents--which is secular humanism. I suspect that Romney is referring to that. It is possible, although i do not claim to know it, that among members of the religious right, secular humanism is now referred to in a kind of short-hand as secularism.

In the very early days of this site, i had a long argument with O'George about secular humanism, and my position was also that secularism cannot be a religion, and basically accused O'George of indulging the Chicken Little syndrome. However, subsequent research has shown me that, at least insofar as concerns secular humanism, O'George is correct to describe it as a movement. Furthermore, it reminded me of a group of militant atheists of whom i became aware when i was living in Columbus, Ohio, whose atheism was, functionally, a religion for them (with "science" as their "scripture," and about which they understood as little as one can expect your garden variety fundamentalist to understand about the historical and literary antecedents of biblical scripture). I was completely put off by their militancy and their attitude toward not simply religionists but toward anyone who dissented from them. I rather quickly declined to participate in their activities, even though i had first encountered them via a woman whom i found attractive--they were sufficiently "off-putting" that i drifted away from her.

You can read the Wikipedia article on secular humanism here.

You can visit the home page of the Council for Secular Humanism here.

Whether or not Mr. Romney was referring to secular humanism, the existence of organized secular humanist groups would certainly lead members of the religious right to believe that they are involved in a battle with "secularist" forces. Romney, or his handlers, may be attempting to exploit such a sentiment.

Set, there are still large numbers of Secular Humanists within UU memberships but I don't see them staunchly campaigning for removal of all things religious from public places. The militant atheists you refer to -- those who make a religion of their atheism are more what I think he was referring to.

A study of the tenets of Secular Humanism found in your wiki link is a good summary of what they believe. I've never found them to be militant about removing religion from the public sphere.

No, JPB, neither have i. And i agreed with your comment about a definition of religion, and how broadly it could be applied. It certainly could be applied to far too many people whom i have met who describe themselves as atheists.

It does not matter, of course, that secular humanists are not bent on removing religion from society--all that will matter will be the perception that this is so, if Romney, and others like him, can exploit a fear of that among members of the religious right.

It should be noted at this point that Huckabee, a devout Babdist, has raised the spectre of whether or not Mormons are to be considered Christians--it is that kind of thing that Romney may feel he has to struggle against. That may lead him to adopt a strongly religious stand in the hope of convincing the religious right that they hold the same values.

Christians telling other Christians that they can't be in the club are my favorite kind (not).

You seem quite sure of yourself.

Atheism is a religion like not having cancer is a type of cancer

The difference between that and the worries the original guy quoted for this topic seems to be having could be most starkly illustrated by thinking about someone, completely insulated from political/world affairs etc who is simply asked, do you believe in God? If the answer is in the negative you can be more confident it'll be clean and unemotional. Contrast this with the guy who has been completely immersed in the on-going mishmash of opinions (maybe also directly affected) regarding religion and God, all as a by-product of the rising political tensions etc. The latter is far more open to heavily identifying with this answer. In fact, more than that, often they're probably expected to have an emotionally fuelled response as a sign of awareness and the last thing many would want now is to be meek with regards to these kinds of questions. Fence sitters beware!

Isms is as isms are.

I've been of the opinion for a long time that all people indulge in some kind of religion.

Mind you, I regard religion as the worship of an idea

If you mean that all people hold some sort of irrational beliefs then yes, but I would say that religion refers more to the organized following of these irrational beliefs, so in that case I would say no.

As far as the original topic of the post, I'm going to have to agree with the "Romney is a tard" crew here, certainly there is a movement attempting to preserve the boundaries of Religion and the State but to call it a religion is silly.