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

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly, the difference is experienced content, not propositional content. This is why the secular humanist will find it hard to object to religious humanism's influence in society and government. Why they will be hard pressed to be secular, with respect to the religion of humanism.

I'll plow ahead with another example, from earlier. A religion of nature. Most secular humanists are also naturalists. A religion of nature might state that we have an ethical commitment to environmental stewardship. As far as it's confluence with humanism, it's not clear how we could be looking out for humans if we weren't committed, in at least some sense. Here again it is very likely that a secular humanist will have trouble being secular. This example has the benefit of not using the same words in two contexts, as secular humanism and religious humanism do.

[Belacqua]

You would describe the Chinese use of copper impregnated cards ('Joss paper') as 'secular'?

By your definition the Catholic church would be a "secular" organisation, (and all catholics are faithless heathen) which just underlines the deceit intended.

Was this reply intended for me?

Because I certainly would not describe those things as secular. And if you read what I've said you'll see why. 

Are you accusing me of deceit?

[Mr Greene]

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. 
The criteria is that the followers believe in the gods, spirits etc.
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.
Either way the definition you are proposing is worthless for obvious reasons and clearly intended to obfuscate.
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.

[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.

[Mr Greene]

The attempt to label foreign religions as secular is the same bait & switch used by the German bishops declaring that the followers of the Norse pantheon weren't a real religion and therefore 'faithless heathen' which was then used to try and justify their actions in 'evangelizing' them. This involved rounding villages up at sword point, and if they didn't accept their new religion killing all but one, looting everything they could and torching the village (usual xtian practice). They then of course acted with shock and outrage when the Norse turned round and sacked Lindesfarne.

As for the religions of the far East the Portuguese recognised them as religions on arrival, thus your attempt to redefine the term holds no water.

[Belacqua]

The attempt to label foreign religions as secular is the same bait & switch used by the German bishops declaring that the followers of the Norse pantheon weren't a real religion and therefore 'faithless heathen' which was then used to try and justify their actions in 'evangelizing' them. This involved rounding villages up at sword point, and if they didn't accept their new religion killing all but one, looting everything they could and torching the village (usual xtian practice). They then of course acted with shock and outrage when the Norse turned round and sacked Lindesfarne.

As for the religions of the far East the Portuguese recognised them as religions on arrival, thus your attempt to redefine the term holds no water.

I have never attempted to label foreign religions as secular. You aren't understanding my ideas at all. 

Please stop imagining that I'm saying something I'm not saying.

[The Grand Nudger]

If people don't understand your ideas...that might have something to do with the delivery. What about durkheims anthopological definition of religion fits the case that you've offered as an objection?

A set of beliefs about the sacred and the set apart that unites all who adhere to them into a moral whole.

120 years. For 120 years this has been a "western" view of "religion" - including eastern religions. Does some eastern religion you have in mind exceed the boundaries of that description, in proposition or in practice?

[Mr Greene]

As a specific example you claim Taoism was simply what was until Buddhism turned up. This presupposes that the Taoists lived in  a vacuum. However the Ancient Chinese were well acquainted with Hinduism, the Greek Pantheon, Steppe Shamanism, Zoroastrianism, etc. via the Silk Road. So the claim still carries no water.

[The Grand Nudger]

The central question confucius sought to answer...before taoisms introduction, was the basis of an orderly society -if not- ancestral and nature spirits.

[Belacqua]

However the Ancient Chinese were well acquainted with Hinduism, the Greek Pantheon, Steppe Shamanism, Zoroastrianism, etc. via the Silk Road. So the claim still carries no water.

Thank you, this is a good example of the kind of thing I was talking about. 

It is anachronistic to say that the ancient Chinese were acquainted with Hinduism. No one at that time thought of himself as a Hindu. 

The term was introduced by colonialists in the 18th century, who needed to categorize traditional thought in India along lines that they were comfortable with. Prior to that, those practices in India were a loose collection of texts, themes, practices, etc. 

It's misleading to call their Dharma a religion, which has different boundaries and nuances. But the colonizers weren't big on nuance. 

If we could approach the whole thing with an open mind, and not need to win battles, it would be very interesting to see how the set of practices which were much later called Taoism responded to the various practices which British people later called Hinduism. 

All of this is going far away from my original point, though, which is that for something to be secular there has to be something which is perceived as religious in a way which can be set aside for the purposes of education, health care, etc.