Philosophy 2 (New)

Before I even hear the argument.

Because of that, I'll say that I would be deeply suspicious of anyone concluding that open advocacy of a general strike could be made illegal. I'd be likewise deeply suspicious of any argument that did the same.

I'm leaving myself only the barest amount of wiggle room as I haven't actually read this hypothetical argument I don't like to go so far as to say that the argument isn't even worth reading with a sliver of an open mind (especially as I'm not a Constitutional scholar)

You're kidding, right? This is the whole root of the problem: Town X hosts a Christmas parade, local non-Christians ask that it gets expanded to a Holiday parade so that other groups are included, and people on your side throw a fit. First page I googled brought up examples like this: it should be a "Christmas" parade, and screw everyone else.

That's where this whole mess starts, GoRight: it's those Christians who don't want to share public space with other religions.

This is not true. The Christians just don't want to have their traditions subverted. Christmas is, after all, their tradition. The Christians don't object to any other religions celebrating their own traditions. Christians don't care if the Jews celebrate Hanukkah, for instance. Or if others want to celebrate Kwanzaa.

That's as wild a leap of logic as I've ever seen from you: defense of a practice = demand of a practice? Huh?

So, you don't actually care if people want to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays"? Well, then, problem solved. Let people continue to say "Merry Christmas" and you can find something else to write about. OK?

The only people "demanding" this are store owners, who are well within their rights to demand their employees speak in Pig Latin if they want. And it's wise business practice. For people on the Right to throw a fit about this makes zero sense, especially as the side ostensibly on the side of employer rights.

It is true that the store owners can set whatever policies (within the law, of course) that they want. Do the customers not have the right to express their opinions regarding those policies? Wouldn't it also be "wise" for those same employers to pay attention to the demographics of their customer base, and listen to their concerns? If they judge those concerns to be unreasonable they can choose to ignore them, correct?

And to swing that as a swipe against Christians is doubly goofy, as a simple thought experiment would show: if you had an employee who insisted on greeting everyone in your store with "Don't forget Christ died for your sins!", you'd probably ask said employee not to continue that practice. Would that make you intolerant?

Well, actually, YES that would be intolerant ... almost by definition. Whether your action in this example was "right", "proper", or "justified" is open to debate. Whether it is an example of intolerance is not. This unquestionably would be an example of intolerance. You are, in effect, telling the employee that "you aren't going to tolerate that specific behavior, are you not?"

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

bad dictionary writer for using the word religion.

I would paste this entire page but I will just hope you check it out.

First off, a contrary definition:

secular humanism
n.

1. An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
2. Secularism.

Then the Wiki differences from other beliefs:

Relationship to other concepts

When humanists use the phrase secular humanism it is typically to emphasize differences relative to religion or religious humanism.

There are a number of ways in which secular and religious humanism can differ:[3]

* Religious humanists may value rituals and ceremonies as means of affirming their life stance. Secular humanists are typically not interested in using rituals and ceremonies.[4]
* Some religious humanists may seek profound "religious" experiences, such as those that others would associate with the presence of God, despite interpreting these experiences differently. Secular humanists would generally not pursue such experiences.
* Some varieties of nontheistic religious humanism may conceive of the word divine as more than metaphoric even in the absence of a belief in a traditional God; they may believe in ideals that transcend physical reality; or they may conceive of some experiences as "numinous" or uniquely religious. Secular humanism regards all such terms as, at best, metaphors for truths rooted in the material world.
* Some varieties of religious humanism, such as Christian humanism include belief in God, traditionally defined. Secular humanism is skeptical about God and the supernatural and believes that these are not useful concepts for addressing human problems.

While some humanists embrace calling themselves secular humanists, others prefer the term Humanist, capitalized and without any qualifying adjective. The terms secular humanism and Humanism overlap, but have different connotations. The term secular humanism emphasizes a non-religious focus, whereas the term Humanism deemphasizes this and may even encompass some nontheistic varieties of religious humanism. The term Humanism also emphasizes considering one's humanism to be a life stance.

Secular humanism advocates secularism but is a broader concept. Secularism has a number of usages but generally emphasize limits on the role of religious or supernatural considerations in the affairs of society or government. Secular humanism adds to these positions a comprehensive perspective on life, including affirmation of human dignity and the importance of ethics.

Lastly, let's look at the controversy you are trying to create:

Is secular humanism a religion?

Because it adopts positions about the place of God and religion in well-ordered society, some Christians maintain that secular humanism is itself a religion. Humanists say that secular humanism is not a religion, while acknowledging that some varieties of humanism may be religious in some senses of the word. Disputes around this subject are largely semantic.

There is a continuum of humanist philosophies which may be divided into several categories:

* A. Nontheistic non-religious humanism
* B. Nontheistic religious humanism
* C. Theistic religious humanism

Adherents of the first category of humanism, A, emphatically do not regard their variety of humanism as a religion. Adherents of the last two categories of humanism, B and C, regard their variety of humanism as a religion.

Confusion arises because proponents and opponents of humanism tend to define the term secular humanism differently.

* Among proponents of humanism, secular humanism refers to category A. The current article relates primarily to secular humanism as defined in this fashion.
* Among Christians who oppose humanism, secular humanism is used to refer to categories A and B, or even A, B and C.

Fundamentalists use the descriptions of those in category B of their humanism as a religion to "prove" that "Secular Humanism is a religion." This angers those who actually call themselves secular humanists, those in category A, because their variety of humanism is "by definition not religious."

So, the question of whether secular humanism is or is not a religion devolves into a question of semantics, and a question of whether people are to be trusted to know whether their own beliefs are religious in nature:

* If one uses self-reporting of adherents to determine which beliefs are "religious" then:
o Using the definition of those who self-identify as secular humanists, then secular humanism is emphatically not a religion. To these individuals, the word "secular" means "not religious" and is an assertion of their desire to be not associated with religion.
o Using the fundamentalists' definition of secular humanism, the question of whether secular humanism is a religion or not is not coherent: secular humanism denotes a range of world views, some of which are religious and some of which are not.
* If one does not use self-reporting of adherents to determine which beliefs are "religious" then:
o What definition of "religion" one adheres to will determine whether some varieties of nontheistic humanism should be regarded as religious or not.

In other words, quit trying to label us. :-)

Hmm, question of semantics? Who always uses that?

Religion, on the other hand, does NOT necessarily imply a deity or anything supernatural

In the sense that you're using it, yes it does. The M-W, while not the best English dictionary out there, is trying to cover all its bases, and uses which don't contain some element of the super-natural (that is, something which transcends everyday direct experience) are metaphorical, not literal. It's a fair use, but not the one you want.

ex) My brother is religiously devoted to the Mets.

That's not true, but it's one of the many ways "religious" is used in a non-literal way, which is what the M-L is describing with that entry.

As for being a "theist" without being "religious", that's usually what people mean when they say they're "spiritual", but unaffiliated. So I agree on that part.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce