[Serious] How many reasonable solutions are there to any particular social issue?

[Belacqua]

If the definition applies to one it applies to both, there is no honest method of claiming one is a religion whilst the other is not. 

By "the definition" do you mean the way I'm defining "secular"? Of course there's an honest way to define it -- a non-religious institution set up to be independent of religious affiliation. For a long time hospitals, schools, and other things were associated with religious groups, and then people decided to make ones that weren't. That's secularity.

The criteria is that the followers believe in the gods, spirits etc.

Do you mean criteria for determining what's religious? 

The criteria you give is our modern way of using the word. That's how we use it now. If such belief is an integral part of a culture's whole worldview, then it is unlikely to have institutions which operate independently of that view. So they don't have secular institutions. 

If beliefs in gods, spirits, etc., are an integral part of a society's beliefs, then those beliefs are "the way the world is" and "what we do." There would be no concept of a separate field called "religion." Once religion comes to be defined as separate from how the world is and what we do -- something you can get through life without, or one of a number of possible choices -- then secularism becomes possible.

Either the Catholics are sincere in what they say and by your definition are 'secular', or they don't believe a word of their claims and are lying through their teeth but would be a religion.

That doesn't follow at all. A Catholic may participate in a secular institution. It may be difficult if he's called on to do things that Catholics shouldn't do, but he can always quit. I imagine many religious people, especially those in the minority, are in favor of secular institutions because it protects them from the tyranny of the majority. This doesn't require anyone to lie. 

Either way the definition you are proposing is worthless for obvious reasons and clearly intended to obfuscate.

It's not worthless for me. And you can't read my mind, so you don't know my intentions.

As I've said elsewhere Machiavelli gives a far more practical insight into the thoughts of believers, and is applicable to the Pontiff and Ham and pretty much all others we encounter, including yourself.

I'm not able to read the mind of all believers, so I don't know. Many of those I've met seem sincere. But I see that you have judged me to be a liar, so I expect you won't want to talk to me anymore. Bye.