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.

[genkaus]

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

All evidence to the contrary.

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.

Which is not the same thing as perceived intolerance - the claim you made in latter posts.

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.

Oh, you are sure, are you? So, there is no actual evidence of any other cultural category falling within this scope and no known reason why any other would be excluded - but as long as you say you are sure, I guess we have no choice but to take you at your word.

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.

And why do you think that - that ideally it should be a combination?

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.

The paradox is only in your mind. Secularism is only required to tolerate different view-points, it is not required to make all of them feel accepted. And since many of the conservative values are in conflict with secular values (because of them being irrational and illogical), that viewpoint may be tolerated but not accepted.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

What you're saying doesn't seem to make sense. You're saying the women is wrong for feeling rejected? You're saying that there's only one way to be secular and it's your way?

I don't think any of this is valid.

I think it's better to make secularism more comforting and accepting towards all kinds of people, especially Muslims.

[thesummerqueen]

I haven't even read the rest of the thread (at the bottom of the 1st page right now). Is this Vinny guy a troll? Seriously?

Leave your fucking religion at home when you're at school or work - you don't need to be made "comfortable" by your coworkers by knowing they're religious or not. I'm a damn atheist and my boss is a bible-thumping Christian. We don't bother each other none and at all. What these people are afraid of is that if they press their religion forward, someone is going to give them the deserved look of "you're an idiot."

Said bible-thumping boss does not look askance at me having pre-marital sex. He jokes with me about it - that's because he's aware that we have different opinions and none of those have anything to do with how I get my job done, unless I'm walking funny the next morning in which case he has more opportunities to tease me.

If you ask me, all religiously based holidays should be taken on vacation time, not mandated by the government, and religious shit should be kept under the radar in secular settings. Then you won't have to worry about who you work with. It might work in your favor: I won't look at you like a potential terrorist, and you'll have your mind blown by realizing that my lack of faith frees me to be a much more interesting person than where I go to church.

[genkaus]

What you're saying doesn't seem to make sense. You're saying the women is wrong for feeling rejected? You're saying that there's only one way to be secular and it's your way?

I don't think any of this is valid.

I think it's better to make secularism more comforting and accepting towards all kinds of people, especially Muslims.

I'm saying that it's not them being rejected, it's their ultra-conservative values that are and they are taking it personally. I'm saying that the only way secularism can be more comforting to those kind of people is by sacrificing its own core values that are in direct conflict to theirs. These women are not actually being rejected - they feel rejected because in a secular environment they have to come across a variety of liberal attitudes that make them uncomfortable and the only way of making them more comfortable would be by actively rejecting these values - which would go against the principle of secularism itself.

---

If you ask me, all religiously based holidays should be taken on vacation time, not mandated by the government

Nooooooo...... That's the only aspect of religion that I actually like. Days off apart from vacation time.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

But secularism by definition allows for the possibility of ultra-conservative values. As long as those values are not being imposed on anybody else, secularism is perfectly accepting of them.

I think maybe conservatism is more than just being conservative. A big part of it is also being in an environment where people are not doing things you consider morally abhorrent.

Perhaps it would be like being an atheist and living next to a mosque. Or hearing your neighbors praying to God. Or having to deal with ramadan, and the like.

[The Grand Nudger]

What you're saying doesn't seem to make sense. You're saying the women is wrong for feeling rejected? You're saying that there's only one way to be secular and it's your way?

I don't think any of this is valid.

I think it's better to make secularism more comforting and accepting towards all kinds of people, especially Muslims.

I have a vastly different opinion of the matter. I don't think secularism needs to be comforting for anyone. Why would muslims deserve special consideration in this regard?

Rejection and the perception of rejection are very often not entirely equivalent Vinny.

[genkaus]

But secularism by definition allows for the possibility of ultra-conservative values. As long as those values are not being imposed on anybody else, secularism is perfectly accepting of them.

Since no one is kicking them out, I'd say their values are being allowed.

I think maybe conservatism is more than just being conservative. A big part of it is also being in an environment where people are not doing things you consider morally abhorrent.

Perhaps it would be like being an atheist and living next to a mosque. Or hearing your neighbors praying to God. Or having to deal with ramadan, and the like.

It is exactly like that. I live near two different mosques and in a community that frequently have big religious ceremonies that frequently block the traffic. Trust me, being awakened every morning at 5 by prayers being shouted from loudspeakers, as if the two mosques were competing on who could be the loudest, is no picnic. But living with it is a part of living in a secular environment and I don't expect the local government to ban these things just to make me more "comfortable".

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

No, I don't buy your explanation. It seems bizarre. I wouldn't say that everybody does equally well in totally secular environments. There has to be a period of adjustment, a period of accustomization. And I think typical secular environments don't have that. While they think there should be accustomization for some groups, evidently it's not for others.

This, I think reflects the bias inherent in typical secular environments.

[genkaus]

No, I don't buy your explanation. It seems bizarre. I wouldn't say that everybody does equally well in totally secular environments. There has to be a period of adjustment, a period of accustomization. And I think typical secular environments don't have that. While they think there should be accustomization for some groups, evidently it's not for others.

This, I think reflects the bias inherent in typical secular environments.

And why "should" it be there? Some groups get accustomed easily because their values match up with the secular ones. Others don't because theirs' don't. If secular environments had that period of adjustment for some groups, then that would suggest bias in favor of those groups. You can't be biased for doing nothing.