The paradox of acceptance vs rejection in secular settings

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

That was the point of the article. Are you confusing the article with the OP? It seems like you are, because the OP mentions the perceived intolerance of secularism quite explicitly.

Actually, the OP does not mention the "perceived intolerance of secularism" explicitly. It doesn't mention it at all. You do understand what the word "explicitly" means, don't you?

You can search your own post for the words "perceived" or "intolerance", but you won't find them. Though, I guess you'd just blame it on your inability to use the search function.

Here's a link so you can look at it again, to catch what you missed: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14602-po...#pid331493

Here's a link to the article, which is quite different from the OP. It's not the same as the OP: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/educat...mbers.html

If you ask me, I think this touches on the matter of whether secularism is politicized to be liberal in nature. It seems as though it is.

Take a look yourself. And then take a gander at my argument and try to find out where I'm wrong. In your own OP, the only "evidence" you presented was the article and explicitly stated that your argument "rests on the fact that these Muslim women feel rejected by secular liberal values". You gave neither the evidence, nor the argument for any other cultural minority feeling that way and yet later you tried to assert that your OP said that "significant portion of the world's culture felt that way".

What you did mention - explicitly - is that "some cultures actually find liberal values offensive and inhospitable". Implying that the problem lies with those cultures and not with secularism. And yet, later on, you tried to shoe-horn the idea of "intolerance of secularism".

As I said to someone before, if you're going to lie, atleast be a little smart about it.

No, you're still not reading, are you?

It means, for these kind of people, a perfect society is reached not by appealing to secular liberal values, but secular conservative values.

And it rests on the fact that these Muslim women feel rejected by secular liberal values.

This, my friend, is perceived rejection. And it's most newsworthy and explicit given the NYT focus on middle-eastern women entering our universities. But I'm sure it broadens in scope to other non-religious but socially conservative cultures, but who are not as newsworthy, or might go against the narrative of the NYT for whatever reason.

So yes, I think secularism de facto is not secularism de jure. Secularism defacto is secular liberalism, while secularism de jure is ideally a combination of liberalism and conservatism.

Where both the gay and the Muslim feel accepted. Both the minority and the majority feel accepted. Where both the pro-choice and pro-life feel accepted.

This is the paradox of secularism. It's become politicized.