Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, December 3, 2008 02:56 PM

  it is indeed a puzzle

  I never thought of the word "secular" as related to an "-ism."

  In fact, I found the very idea improbable- until I happened on the passage found on page 6 of this thread:

  "Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

  That sounds more like a syllogistic just-so "explanation" than a definition, to me.

  And speaking for myself, my religious faith- a word I use advisedly, as "the evidence of things unseen", a phenomenon which is not to be confused with the nonexistent or hallucinatory, although dogmatic skeptics demand that it be so- is also "manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

  For me, secular stuff is just secular stuff. Going to an exhibit of Impressionism or Dadaism at an art museum is a secular activity, for me. So is eating lunch. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I don't insist that my experiential world be comprised of devout symbolism, 100% of the time.

  If I have an issue with the secular realm, it has to do with what I find lacking about it.

  My advice is to not make an "-ism" out of the secular. That way lies dogmatism. Attempting to attribute every instance of societal malevolence and mass bloodshed in history to a "religion-related" cause, for instance.

  —cabdriver Read cabdriver's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel