Please educate me: What is so terrible about secular humanism?

[melissel]

And why is it OK to speak pejoratively of it, when it's not OK to speak that way of other belief structures?

 

I know, I know. Can open, worms everywhere. But I've been wondering this for awhile. I've seen some mention it, both here and on the old board, very negatively, and I'd love to know why it's such a trigger. Obviously, it's a belief system very different from that of most people here, but in light of some of the discussions that I've very much enjoyed reading lately (and from which I learned a great deal), I'd like to hear more about the issue from the members of this learned group.

 

TIA!

[PariSarah]

. . . especially not in any public setting in the West, where it is quite the dominant assumption.

 

My personal dislike for it has to do with how ruthlessly it squelches diversity and how its advocates seek to replace indigenous religious faiths with something that purports to be areligious, but usually closely resembles the dominant religion of the land in which it is found.

 

France is the most obvious example of this. Their version of secularity is much more antithetical to religion than ours, and bringing any sort of "religious" argument or practice into the public arena is supposed to be prohibited. But in point of fact, a certain strand of Catholicism (one stripped of most of its important beliefs and practices) is taken to be "normal" behavior, and that strand of Catholicism has a lot of political sway in France.

 

It tends to work that way wherever secular humanism is the dominant civil religion.

[PariSarah]

"And why is it OK to speak pejoratively of it, when it's not OK to speak that way of other belief structures?"

 

I think you'll find that it's usually spoken of pejoratively by people of faith, who tend to feel exactly how oppressive secular humanism is when it has hold of the political structure. Any time one religion has a hold on a particular nation, members of other religions will chafe under it.

 

And since many of those people of faith have experienced secular humanists speaking pejoratively of them, they are usually happy to return the favor.

[fishnoises]

If you are going to ask a Christian what is so terrible about secular humanism, then you know what their answer will be. What I don't understand is why secular humanists, who don't believe that their actions will affect what happens to them after they die, or don't believe in God, or whatever it is they don't or do believe in...why do they get offended? I for one, only get offended if my belief system and form of practicing and worshipping is taken away from me. I do not understand why my wishing someone "Merry Christmas" is offensive. Take it or leave it. It is only a greeting meant to share some joy.

One of the reasons we homeschool is because I am tired of the walking on eggshells that goes on in the world! Everything people say these days seems to always offend someone. (Even amongst Christians. Especially amongst Christians!) The basic core of our faith is to what Jesus commanded, and that is "Love one another", and another, "Judge not, lest ye be judged". It is our duty to not cast judgment on others, or we run the risk of sounding hypocritical.

If I ever offend someone on this forum, then please tell me. I am only responding to a question that was posed.

[kalanamak]

What I don't understand is why secular humanists, who don't believe that their actions will affect what happens to them after they die, or don't believe in God, or whatever it is they don't or do believe in...why do they get offended? edited

 

is a kooky extension of a, to me, wholly desirable separation of church and state. Individuals are not the church nor the state, IMO.

 

I think you will find that many who are "offended" are not actually secular humanists. I work with plenty of non-believers who have never heard of secular humanism, people who often view the religion of their childhood with PTSD-like misery.

Look under Tenets at this wikipedia site, and you'll see that few of the anti-religious or a-religious people are actually secular humanists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Many are spiritualists of other ilks (various Eastern religions, Pagan...with a capitol P, etc). Personally, I think secular humanism was turned into a term of contempt by certain insecure believers. If people want to spit a phrase through clenched teeth, they can turn just about anything into a term of contempt. I recall the unpleasant tone my home state was addressed by when I lived in New York. To one classmate I finally said "and I bet you've never been there." He hadn't.

 

But I digress. Shaw was reported to have said that Christianity was a great idea and that someone should try it some day. The tenets listed at the above site are equally capable of challenging and rewarding the sincere student of them.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I do not understand why my wishing someone "Merry Christmas" is offensive.

 

It can be upsetting because it assumes that the person you're talking to celebrates Christmas. People feel disrespected when assumptions are made about them. I choose not to feel offended, but I do think people who insist on wishing everyone a merry Christmas should re-read their etiquette books. There's about as much secular humanist about not calling a young woman, "sir," as there is in not wishing a Jewish, Muslim or Pagan person a merry Christmas. It's simply inconsiderate, impolite to incorrectly label a person.

 

I can understand why some people get so upset. It's grating because of the intensity of the Christmas experience. Every year my kids and myself watch everyone else celebrate something that has no meaning for us. We are bombarded with decorations, sales, songs, and greetings everywhere we turn for six weeks. There is no escaping this holiday we don't celebrate. Consciously NOT celebrating something which is making the whole world happy is a painful experience by the sixth week. Can you imagine what effect it has on a mom to watch her four-year-old's eyes light up at a Christmas tree display, and then see his face sink and his lips quiver when he remembers that at home he only has a stupid little menorah? Or how upsetting it is when baggers in the grocery store ask your kids, "What is Santa bringing you?" and they turn to you to find out?

 

My partner wrote this poem, worth a read if you really want to understand. Here's my favorite line:

 

December 26th, 2005

 

My children watch Dora help Santa Claus deliver presents. The wild animals celebrate Christmas. Even the moon is a Christian. On another show Santa advises little Timmy to stay away from fried foods.

 

If you didn't know, Jewish folk eat oil-fried foods on Hanukkah to celebrate the miracle of the oil lasting longer than physically possible in the temple menorah. But it's really that moon celebrating Christmas thing that drives people to being offended by what is meant as well-wishing. By January 1st, we all have an urge to get on our rooftops and shout, "There are other religions in the world!"

[dragons in the flower bed]

is a kooky extension of a, to me, wholly desirable separation of church and state. Individuals are not the church nor the state, IMO.

 

I totally agree that it is wrong to limit personal expressions of faith. However, "Merry Christmas!" is short for, "Have a merry Christmas," which means "go and enjoy this Christian holiday," which really means, "go and do what Christians do." In other words, you're essentially cheerfully telling someone, "Be like me!" If someone came up to you and merrily exclaimed, "Be like me!" you'd think they were drunk, wouldn't you?

[Sue G in PA]

Rose, I totally hear where you are coming from. I used to be of the "wish everyone a Merry Christmas" mind-set. As a Christian, it comes natural for me. BUT, I have so many friends (and relatives) of the Jewish faith that I stopped doing that. I'm now very conscious of the fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas. Your post really gave ME something even more to think about...how the KIDS feel! I see it this way...most of the world celebrates the pagan version of Christmas (trees, decorations, gifts, candy canes, Santa Clause, reindeer, etc.), not giving any thought to the reason we, as Christians, celebrate Christmas. Christmas these days is so void of religion really. Even my Jewish relatives, while they practice their own faith, have their 3 children participate in the pagan celebrations of Christmas (Santa, opening presents, etc.) w/out giving it a second thought. I've always found that a bit odd, but hey...to each his own!

 

As to the secular Humanism...of course it goes against my Christian beliefs. I never thought there was an negativity surrounding it, though. In fact, most of our country would probably agree w/ it's tenants! I always felt, as a Christian, that is was OUR religion that was shunned! In schools especially, where every other religion is discussed, celebrated, accepted, etc...it is the Christian faith that is banned! When my kids were in ps...they taught about Kwanza (I know, not a religion), Judaism, Islam, Buddism, etc. and spent a week or more on each one. When I asked about the Christian faith, there was silence. Well, they said, we speak of Jesus in the historical sense...around Christmas. THat's it! A mere mention of Jesus...in the historical context! We were constantly walked all over. If I child wanted to bring in a speaker to talk about Islam...GREAT! I asked to come and speak of Christianity and "it isn't allowed!". It might not be that way in all parts of the country (but I think it is). Anyway, most people in this country embrace anything BUT Christianity. So, Rose, I know how you feel in a sense! AND, I'm so sorry that you and your family goes through this every Christmas. Just realize that what you see as all the hullabaloo is NOT the real Christian Christmas...it's the secular version, void of most if not all religion! Hugs to you and your kids :)

[Soph the vet]

It has been brought to my attention that Marxism and Humanism have many similarities. One can compare the Communist manifesto to the three Humanist manifestos and see that they are spouting the same things. If I wanted to live under communism I would move to North Korea and we know how great things are there:rolleyes:. That is my aversion to humanism.

[Plaid Dad]

I accept secular humanism as a distinct life philosophy - one I disagree with, to be sure, but a fully formed philosophy. My issue with it comes from people who treat it as a default or "neutral" position from which religious ideas diverge. This viewpoint is nearly universal where we live (college area), and it is very common in the public sphere generally (the press, public schools, etc.).

 

I have a dear friend who is a secular humanist. She cannot for the life of her see that she holds a worldview as pervasive as my Catholic one. For her, secular humanists are "normal, thinking people" and religious people are bigots unless proved otherwise (meaning that they agree with her on her pet political projects). She is totally blind to her own underlying assumptions. She cannot not see that by saying "there is no God," she was articulating a theology, and that by believing that human beings can perfect the world, she is staking out a philosophical position. She actually once said to me, "Yes, but we're right and you're wrong." And that's an end to it.

 

I have gently pointed out to her that, in the history of the world, it is atheism that is an aberration, and that genuine atheists (as opposed to "official" atheists in countries without freedom of religion) are a tiny minority. Has it occurred to her that there might be a good reason for that? "But we're right and they're all wrong." What can you say to that?

 

None of this is an excuse for treating individuals poorly. I love this friend dearly and (if we can dig out from the latest snowstorm) will be going to a potluck at her house later today. I respect her thoughtfulness in making decisions from within the worldview she holds, even if she doesn't recognize that she has a worldview. But when that lack of awareness becomes culturally pervasive and begins to affect not only public discourse but public policy, then, Houston, we have a problem.

 

I do know that there are self-aware, more "philosophical" secular humanists, and again, I appreciate their attempts to articulate their worldview more clearly (what, in my world, would be called "doing apologetics"). I don't have any desire to trash those people as people, but I also wouldn't hesitate to critique their ideas where I find them lacking or misguided.

[SparrowsNest]

On the topic of secular humanism, philosophically it is a belief system which is directly opposed to Christianity at a core level. Secular humanism posits that human beings are intrinsically good and that whatever has 'gone wrong' can be corrected through education, social programs, governmental management, i.e, we can build our own utopia if only everyone thinks 'correctly' (whatever that looks like, maybe something like Star Trek, Next Generation ;) ). On a large scale, as an outcome of this core belief, Christianity becomes culturally irrelevant. Christianity on the other hand begins to the understanding that human beings are, at a core level, broken by sin. We would say that what we *most* need is not of a particular educational strategy or better-crafted laws which point us towards this ideal vision of humanity, but the only thing that speaks to this core deficit is a Saviour who can put us in right relationship with God and those around us. It is not surprising, then, that Christians and secular humanists are going to clash, and I think that clash goes both ways. Both systems have been jostling for power in our (American) culture for a while now.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I do know that there are self-aware, more "philosophical" secular humanists, and again, I appreciate their attempts to articulate their worldview more clearly (what, in my world, would be called "doing apologetics"). I don't have any desire to trash those people as people, but I also wouldn't hesitate to critique their ideas where I find them lacking or misguided.

 

The only references to secular humanism that I've ever heard go something like this: "Lord, we thank thee that we are not as other men -- extortioners, unjust, or even as this [pull back teeth in a slight sneer] secular humanist. We fast twice in the week; we give tithes of all that we possess."

 

;)

 

Except when I briefly (a year or so?) attended a UU church. Then it was more like: "Follow sojourners, we may be thankful that we are not as other men and women and any transgendered fellow citizens -- misguided, oppressive, or even as this evangelical [knowing nods all around]. We stand up for justice and truth; we pledge during pledge drive faithfully."

 

Thanks for your post, Drew. You're good people, and I appreciate you.

[dragons in the flower bed]

My issue with it comes from people who treat it as a default or "neutral" position from which religious idea diverge.

 

Yes! It's like trying to make fish believe in water, very frustrating.

[Kay in Cal]

Lol!

 

Pam, I am determined to have you come visit my church some day--if only to show that we aren't all that bad! Yuck, what a prayer!

 

While I don't agree with all of secular humanism (as an actual philosophy), I have to agree that those who criticize in a public context often don't know what the heck they are talking about. Of course, I must admit I've never heard anything like this in person, never even heard someone really use the term "secular humanism"--except on television.

[dragons in the flower bed]

So, Rose, I know how you feel in a sense! AND, I'm so sorry that you and your family goes through this every Christmas. Just realize that what you see as all the hullabaloo is NOT the real Christian Christmas...it's the secular version, void of most if not all religion! Hugs to you and your kids :)

 

Thanks, Sue. You're always so understanding. And oh, I know that what's in the secular sphere isn't Christian. It's Pagan. I don't know what Christians do for Christmas since when I studied the Bible, it seemed like if you calculate the birth of Jesus from the birth of John, it would place the event during Sukkot, which happens in the fall.

 

Also, in the interests of full disclosure: My partner is Jewish, and for years we celebrated only Jewish holidays. Last year I celebrated a Pagan Winter Solstice with the kids for the first time (alongside Hanukkah). It was more or less Christmas, only without the Bible stories: a sacred tree, the rebirth of the sun, gingerbread. It certainly did take a lot of the annoyance away.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Lol!

 

Pam, I am determined to have you come visit my church some day--if only to show that we aren't all that bad! Yuck, what a prayer!

 

While I don't agree with all of secular humanism (as an actual philosophy), I have to agree that those who criticize in a public context often don't know what the heck they are talking about. Of course, I must admit I've never heard anything like this in person, never even heard someone really use the term "secular humanism"--except on television.

 

Oh, I know that. I really, REALLY do. And I was, of course, just doing a loose parody to make a point. But I'm not going to come there. You're going to move HERE. (We're getting an Earth Fare, you can buy a house (a house!), and you're an hour or two or three from Very Cool Places.)

 

The cool (okay, in a really bizarre way, but you already know I'm not normal, so I'll say it anyway) thing about hating secular humanism so much is that you can really get a good hiss going when you say it pejoratively. Try it. :D

 

(And in the interest of full disclosure: I'm not hatin' on secular humanism. I just find the way some people say things that they love or hate very funny sometimes.)

[Michelle T]

I don't consider myself a secular humanist, but I'm not anymore bothered by those who do than by those who are various other religions.

Michelle T

[j.griff]

So, in all fairness, it would be better to just say "Have a nice day."? I don't see Santa Claus as being a Christian thing, and I see many many not Christian things happening around Christmas time, so I disagree that someone saying "Merry Christmas!" essentially means "go and do what Christians do." I think it just means enjoy the Christmas season- it's just a generic/default way of saying "Enjoy the Season" or "Enjoy the Holidays" (and don't Pagans celebrate Winter Solstice? Is it wrong to call that a "holiday"?).

I understand being irritated with people making assumptions, and with being bombarded by things you just don't agree with and are sick of hearing/seeing, I really do. :) I just think that EVERYONE has too high of expectations of other people- I think the world would be better off if we stop having knee-jerk reactions (and I'm NOT saying that "you" are, Rose) and getting our undies all in a bunch because someone else says something that we don't agree with, I think we'd better off just accepting their well wishes in a good natured way, accepting their "good intentions", and moving on- without throwing a bunch of negativity into the mix- (Can you BELIEVE the NERVE of that guy? and grumbling about our differences). Just MHO- and I am not saying any of that to be snarky, and I'm NOT singling out Secular Humanists with that thought either, it applies to everyone equally- stop being so darned offended by everything, the world doesn't revolve around "us" or our ideas or our religions, LOL. :D :D

[melissel]

So, in all fairness, it would be better to just say "Have a nice day."? I don't see Santa Claus as being a Christian thing, and I see many many not Christian things happening around Christmas time, so I disagree that someone saying "Merry Christmas!" essentially means "go and do what Christians do." I think it just means enjoy the Christmas season- it's just a generic/default way of saying "Enjoy the Season" or "Enjoy the Holidays" (and don't Pagans celebrate Winter Solstice? Is it wrong to call that a "holiday"?).

 

*stepping out of sponge-like bystander role*

 

I could make the exact same argument on the opposite side. Why is it so incredibly difficult and offensive to say "Happy Holidays" instead? If you know nothing at all about the person you're speaking to, is it so hard to change your mindset to think inclusively? I celebrate Christmas, and I don't think it's a generic way of saying "Enjoy the holidays" at all. And the fact that it's a default might just be what rubs people the wrong way.

 

*going back to lurking on my own thread, because I'm learning so much from this discussion, thank you all!*

[Diana in OR]

so I disagree that someone saying "Merry Christmas!" essentially means "go and do what Christians do."

 

 

At the same time, as a Christian, with Christmas being the holiday we remember and celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, I don't really understand why a non-Christian would want to celebrate Christmas.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I just think that EVERYONE has too high of expectations of other people- I think the world would be better off if we stop having knee-jerk reactions (and I'm NOT saying that "you" are, Rose) and getting our undies all in a bunch because someone else says something that we don't agree with, I think we'd better off just accepting their well wishes in a good natured way, accepting their "good intentions", and moving on- without throwing a bunch of negativity into the mix- (Can you BELIEVE the NERVE of that guy? and grumbling about our differences).

 

 

I agree. It's one of the reasons I'm not actively teaching my kids all the ins and outs I learned from my etiquette books, but general skills of thoughtfulness, negotiation and forgiveness instead. Too often we look for excuses to get irritated by things which are meant well.

 

I, myself, flub up terribly often. I make assumptions and am thoughtless at times. That's why I can't justify getting irritated when someone else flubs up.

 

That doesn't change whether or not something is factually a flub, though.

 

I guess I view it as a balancing act -- know and do what's right when you have the opportunity, and don't trouble yourself feeling bad because of people who mean well but haven't gotten to the same cognition yet.

 

(I think that "yet" and "cognition" might qualify me as a secular humanist, implying as it does that I believe most people are innately well-intentioned and education solves many problems. Hm . . . )

[Diana in OR]

I've recently read, Our Endangered Values by Jimmy Carter. He was raised a Baptist, and had always considered himself a Christian. When he was newly elected, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention came to see him in the Oval Office (per tradition). As he was leaving, he said to the President, "We are praying, Mr. President, that you will abandon secular humanism as your religion."

 

President Carter was shocked and didn't know what was meant by that comment. Later, he asked his pastor to explaing the comment. Basically, he was deemed a "secular humanist" because some of his political positions were at odds with the Moral Majority, and other conservative Christians. This included his appointment of women to high positions in government, rejecting government funds in religious education, establishing the Department of Education to enhance public schools, helped Mormons resolve some issues in foreign countries, normalizing diplomatic relations with Communist China, and other issues along that same vein.

 

Apparently, somone didn't have a clear definition of secular humanist. Would I have agreed with all the positions Pres. Carter took? Not necessarily, yet I also don't see those as being indicative of a secular humanist.

[Diana in OR]

"Why is it so incredibly difficult and offensive to say "Happy Holidays" instead? "

 

As a Christian, I am also not at all offended by "Happy Holidays". Good grief, we have, in the span of 5 weeks or so, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Hannukah, and many other holidays and traditions some of which are more recent, but some which have roots going back hundreds of years, which I won't try to list b/c I know I'd forget something.

 

Plus, if someone tells me "Happy Holidays" as a statement of refusing to acknowledge Christmas and/or Christians, I'm not particularly threatened by that. It just doesn't register that high on the "persecution of Christians" meter, imo.

[Mekanamom]

I am thoroughly agnostic... we celebrate Christmas as a cultural event. It is the dominant holiday where we live, and therefore, we celebrate the secular aspects of it. In my mind, there is no reason to ignore an enjoyable holiday just because it is celebrated differently by different people or because it means different things to different people. It's just part of the community in which I live. I would celebrate a different holiday if I lived in a place where that holiday was the dominant part of the culture. Isn't this part of what drives many of us to travel? To see and experience different ways of living?

 

That said, even though we don't celebrate the religious aspect of it, I am certainly not offended if someone wishes me a Merry Christmas with good intent. Similarly not offended when someone wishes me a Happy Holiday. If someone is wishing me anything good, I take it in the positive way it is meant. (That includes people praying for me.) A kind thought is always welcome, and since we're NOT all the same, I assume those kind thoughts will be as individual as the person who is thinking them or expressing them to me.

 

I have also been wished a Merry Christmas in such a way that it is meant to be rude. I take that just as it's meant as well. ;)

[justme]

Good topic! I found this website that lays out the beliefs of secular humanism just to be sure it was what I thought it was:

 

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what&section=main

 

Anyway, now that we have that straight, here are my thoughts. First, as others have said, secular humanists do tend to think that they are 'neutral' and 'logical'and by default all other religions that believe in a higher being are somehow backwards, fanatical or in their eyes 'occult/mystical'. Someone mentioned that they tend to squelch all other religions for this reason, and it really is true. It is ironic that in thinking that all religions are basically fanatic and intolerant , they usually end up exhibiting these traits themselves.

 

I also believe that secular humanism tends to lend itself to a de-valuation of human life and tyranny when used by those in power (very close to communism). In believing that there is no higher power and we are not created in the image of god, then by default humans are no better than animals to be used, treated and controlled as such. Think of Hitler killing Jews because he felt they were 'vermin'. Not that all secular humanists all think this way, but I do think it can become a slippery slope when practiced by those in power/government.

[PixieKris]

Is there somewhere I can read more about what you wrote? The strand of Catholocism in France surprises me, and how humanism squelches diveristy has me confused.... Thanks so much!

[GothicGyrl]

At the same time, as a Christian, with Christmas being the holiday we remember and celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, I don't really understand why a non-Christian would want to celebrate Christmas.

Since you asked the question, my answer is "Because it isn't about Jesus (to me) and never really was". Christians can argue this with me all the day long, but that is my answer as to why I would "want" to celebrate Christmas--it isn't about Jesus. He wasn't born on this day, and since that is what I believe, I can celebrate this holiday without any conviction whatsoever--it's just another holiday to me.

 

And please don't attack me or tell me I am wrong about this. The question was asked of us to explain why we would want to celebrate something that is seen as Christian and I answered. The problem is, this holiday is only seen as Christian BY the Christians.

 

Those of us on the outside, don't attach any religious meaning to it whatsoever (unless, like Rose, she attaches the Jewish Hanuakah (sorry I butchered the spelling) or a Pagan Winter Solstice) and I'm perfectly fine doing it this way. ;)

 

If we are going by the wiki link as an explanation of what a Secular Humanist is, then I would be it. I don't know that I'd call anyone (or rather, everyone) else that isn't like me "backwards, fanatical or occultic" (in fact, that links says just the opposite) and based on Justme's link, I find it funny that some are coming in here linking "factual websites" about Secular Humanism and then interjecting a bunch of half-truths based on what they read.

 

*btw, your argument is lost the second you brought up Hitler. That in and of itself, is a slippery slope and I forget the name (it's one of those 'red herring' things), but bringing Hitler up in an argument and relating the atrocity that he committed to anything, unequivically ends the argument.

 

In any case, I can see why saying you are a Secular Humanist might draw ire--we essentially are non-theists, and don't believe in prayer, or any type of supernatural occurence and prefer to live our lives according to a societal moral code that basically calls for logic and common sense to be applied.

 

Personally for me, I don't say "merry christmas" or anything like it unless it is said back to me. If someone says "shalom, happy hannukah", I am going to say "thank you have a great day" back to them. And I'm not going to say it in a snarky or mean way either--it will be with a smile on my face and just said out of common courtesy. If someone says "merry Christmas" to me, I'll say it back. If someone says "Bugger off" --well, they'll get that back too ;)

 

I am an equal opportunity offender, I suppose. ;)

 

And, why did I get a neg rep for asking what type of argument it was? At least the person put in the name, so thank you, but was the neg. rep necessary for that? Lame..

[PariSarah]

(Gosh, is there anything wiki can't answer?)

This wikipedia article does a great job of explaining a controversy over the law banning "ostentatious" religious symbols in public.

 

Whenever you see the word "laicite," you can take that as verbal shorthand for a situation where secular humanism has become the established religion of the land.

 

If you have any questions after reading that article, feel free to PM me. You'll see references to the sort of points I'm making throughout the article, but if what I said is still not clear, I'd be happy to be more detailed.

[PinkInTheBlue]

"Since you asked the question, my answer is "Because it isn't about Jesus (to me) and never really was". Christians can argue this with me all the day long, but that is my answer as to why I would "want" to celebrate Christmas--it isn't about Jesus. He wasn't born on this day, and since that is what I believe, I can celebrate this holiday without any conviction whatsoever--it's just another holiday to me.

 

And please don't attack me or tell me I am wrong about this. The question was asked of us to explain why we would want to celebrate something that is seen as Christian and I answered. The problem is, this holiday is only seen as Christian BY the Christians."

 

Even though I still categorize myself as a Christian, I absolutely agree with this. I do NOT celebrate Christmas as Jesus' birthday because it is not. It's a holiday of fun, gifts, food, presents, etc. Jesus wasn't born on this day and Christians weren't the first to establish that particular day of the year as a holiday. Christians get upset because 'their' Christmas has been turned into a secular religion but in truth it wasn't even 'their' holiday to start with. :)

[GothicGyrl]

"Since you asked the question, my answer is "Because it isn't about Jesus (to me) and never really was". Christians can argue this with me all the day long, but that is my answer as to why I would "want" to celebrate Christmas--it isn't about Jesus. He wasn't born on this day, and since that is what I believe, I can celebrate this holiday without any conviction whatsoever--it's just another holiday to me.

 

And please don't attack me or tell me I am wrong about this. The question was asked of us to explain why we would want to celebrate something that is seen as Christian and I answered. The problem is, this holiday is only seen as Christian BY the Christians."

 

Even though I still categorize myself as a Christian, I absolutely agree with this. I do NOT celebrate Christmas as Jesus' birthday because it is not. It's a holiday of fun, gifts, food, presents, etc. Jesus wasn't born on this day and Christians weren't the first to establish that particular day of the year as a holiday. Christians get upset because 'their' Christmas has been turned into a secular religion but in truth it wasn't even 'their' holiday to start with. :)

Thank you Jessica--that's what I was trying to say. It's just another fun holiday for me ;)

 

And since I couldn't remember it--It's Godwin's Law and I totally disagree that it should be repealled. It has a firm application in today's society, considering everyone wants to blame Hitler for everything wrong with today's world, it fits. This is the link the neg. rep flinger gave me: http://www.reason.com/news/show/32944.html and I will stand far away from anyone who wishes to have this invalid argument repealled.

[melissel]

(Gosh, is there anything wiki can't answer?)

This wikipedia article does a great job of explaining a controversy over the law banning "ostentatious" religious symbols in public.

 

Whenever you see the word "laicite," you can take that as verbal shorthand for a situation where secular humanism has become the established religion of the land.

 

If you have any questions after reading that article, feel free to PM me. You'll see references to the sort of points I'm making throughout the article, but if what I said is still not clear, I'd be happy to be more detailed.

 

WOW. :eek:

[PixieKris]

Thank you! When I read the 'tenets' of Secular Humanism, I am in more or less agreement.

 

Although I would be hesitant to (from the limited information I have) ascribe this to secular humanism... I thought the official position of secular humanism was that they don't have the final answer on anything, and accept all worldviews. The problem I find with accepting all worldviews are some fundamental conflicts, but that is a problem for another time.

 

If I think of any specific questions, I'll message you. Thanks again for the link...

[PariSarah]

It just doesn't register that high on the "persecution of Christians" meter, imo.

 

Heh heh heh.

[PiCO]

At the same time, as a Christian, with Christmas being the holiday we remember and celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, I don't really understand why a non-Christian would want to celebrate Christmas.

 

People all over the world celebrated something at the time of the Winter Solstice for hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. In fact, is is common knowledge that many of the so-called "Christmas" traditions are from pre-christian northern Europe- Yule trees, yule logs, decorating with evergreens, exchanging gifts to name a few.

 

I am not Christian, but I celebrate at that time of year. I call it "Crismus" because that's easier than explaining to everyone I meet that I'm not Christian.

 

Same with Easter- for me it's a celebration of spring (as spring has been celebrated for centuries, complete with bunnies and eggs.)

[GothicGyrl]

People all over the world celebrated something at the time of the Winter Solstice for hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. In fact, is is common knowledge that many of the so-called "Christmas" traditions are from pre-christian northern Europe- Yule trees, yule logs, decorating with evergreens, exchanging gifts to name a few.

 

I am not Christian, but I celebrate at that time of year. I call it "Crismus" because that's easier than explaining to everyone I meet that I'm not Christian.

 

Same with Easter- for me it's a celebration of spring (as spring has been celebrated for centuries, complete with bunnies and eggs.)

Or you could call it like my DH does: "Merry Allergy Attack!"

 

(he's highly allergic to real christmas trees and some fake ones)

 

;)

[SparrowsNest]

And since I couldn't remember it--It's Godwin's Law and I totally disagree that it should be repealled. It has a firm application in today's society, considering everyone wants to blame Hitler for everything wrong with today's world, it fits.

 

 

Godwin's law says that as discussions continue, the likelihood that Hitler/Nazis will be brought up/used as points of reference or comparison approaches one.

 

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

 

Godwin's law doesn't say that you *can't* mention Hitler. It doesn't even say whether it may or may not be appropriate in a given circumstance. And regardless, it's not a proscriptive law (i.e., telling us what we *can* or *can't* do, like running a red light), it's a descriptive law, which merely describes the way Godwin perceives people's interaction.

 

There times when using an example from history, including Nazi Germany, is particularly useful. There are other times when it's used in an inflammatory or exaggerated manner.

[GothicGyrl]

There times when using an example from history, including Nazi Germany, is particularly useful. There are other times when it's used in an inflammatory or exaggerated manner.

 

And this would be one of the times when invoking Hitler in an argument does NOT apply. That's like saying "Vegetarianism is bad because Hitler was a Vegan" for which I could retort "So was Ghandi, but what do either of them have to do with the discussion?"

 

Hitler has nothing to do with this discussion just as he has nothing to do with Vegetarianism (and before I am corrected, I have no clue whether he really was a vegan, it's just an open example).

 

Yet, so many feel that bringing Hitler up in every single conversation that veers towards the "bad" side of things, makes their point, when in fact, it does the opposite. So invoking Godwin's Law on this would apply because Hitler should not have been brought up in this discussion, especially since what he did is so far above the level of what she's trying to say Secular Humanists do.

 

In any case, back on topic. Hitler doesn't deserve any more lip service. In reading the Secular Humanism.org site, it would appear that I have more in common with them than I thought. Which is interesting because I just go through my life trying to do right to others, treating others with the respect and manners I was raised with and try to raise my kids with and such. I never thought it had a name.

[Fourmother]

Secular humanism isn't a religion. Certainly, it has become a dominant philosophy in some places, but that doesn't make it a religion. Philosophy and religion are not necessarily the same thing, after all. I believe that giving secular humanism a religious label is in the political interests of some Christians. Perhaps it's easier to rally the faithful against an opposing "religion" than a different "world view."

[SparrowsNest]

btw, your argument is lost the second you brought up Hitler. That in and of itself, is a slippery slope and I forget the name (it's one of those 'red herring' things), but bringing Hitler up in an argument and relating the atrocity that he committed to anything, unequivically ends the argument.

 

GothicGirl, I don't mean to split hairs here, but this is what you had said, that bringing up Hitler ends an argument. I agree with you that there was no need at this point in the discussion to bring up Hitler, but it doesn't mean that the poster loses the argument or that the argument is over. It simply proves Godwin's law -- to wit, Hitler made it into the discussion. :)

[Audrey]

Secular humanism isn't a religion. Certainly, it has become a dominant philosophy in some places, but that doesn't make it a religion. Philosophy and religion are not necessarily the same thing, after all. I believe that giving secular humanism a religious label is in the political interests of some Christians. Perhaps it's easier to rally the faithful against an opposing "religion" than a different "world view."

 

You put this perfectly! And, oh-so-much more kindly that what was going through my head. ;)

 

FWIW, about the Merry Xmas thing... as far as my experience has been, people seem to say it to be especially friendly at a time of year that inspires extra friendliness in them. I take it in that spirit and it doesn't bother me. I may or may not say it back, it kinds of depends on the individual and the situation. I do wish I'd hear Happy Solstice more often, but that not the reality of my local demographics.

[j.griff]

*stepping out of sponge-like bystander role*

 

I could make the exact same argument on the opposite side. Why is it so incredibly difficult and offensive to say "Happy Holidays" instead? If you know nothing at all about the person you're speaking to, is it so hard to change your mindset to think inclusively? I celebrate Christmas, and I don't think it's a generic way of saying "Enjoy the holidays" at all. And the fact that it's a default might just be what rubs people the wrong way.

 

*going back to lurking on my own thread, because I'm learning so much from this discussion, thank you all!*

 

I don't think it is difficult or offensive to say "Happy Holidays" at all, :D

I think that lots of people happen to be in the habit of saying "Merry Christmas" instead- and I don't see what words someone uses as a greeting

or for well wishing as being something worth spending time/energy/thought life getting all worked up about. I mean absolutely no disrespect by that at all- :) Everyone on this earth has an opinion, we are all different and yet all the same. I wish that folks could just get along without heaping judgements on people because of those differences (you're going to hell if you don't believe xyz or if you don't do xyz or if you DO do xyz; you are not intelligent if you believe xyz or do xyz or DON'T do xyz; etc.) and I am NOT saying that "all Christians" do that, or that all non-Christians do that, :D

Anyway, that's my $.02

[GothicGyrl]

GothicGirl, I don't mean to split hairs here, but this is what you had said, that bringing up Hitler ends an argument. I agree with you that there was no need at this point in the discussion to bring up Hitler, but it doesn't mean that the poster loses the argument or that the argument is over. It simply proves Godwin's law -- to wit, Hitler made it into the discussion. :)

It's a favored thing to do in Debate class (or it was many moons ago for me) when we would practice our debate, invariably someone would say "Hitler did it!" and we'd all scream "You Lose!".. that's what I mean by it--bringing him up in any conversation that doesn't directly involve him in any way (like you said specifically talking about Nazism), means "you lost" because you can't or could't find a more viable side to your argument other than "Hitler Did It!"

 

Plus, I was trying not to involve emotion in to it--I didn't want to say "How dare you accuse me of being similar to Hitler, what he did has nothing to do with or is nothing like what I believe in". Even though she added the qualifier that "not all secular humanists" believe like this, it still means she somewhat believes that what Hitler did and what SH's believe in are the same.

 

 

I am off to work now, though. Please don't take my silence as ignoring the topic. I won't be home until 11 or so.

[RhondaM.]

People all over the world celebrated something at the time of the Winter Solstice for hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. In fact, is is common knowledge that many of the so-called "Christmas" traditions are from pre-christian northern Europe- Yule trees, yule logs, decorating with evergreens, exchanging gifts to name a few.

 

I am not Christian, but I celebrate at that time of year. I call it "Crismus" because that's easier than explaining to everyone I meet that I'm not Christian.

 

Same with Easter- for me it's a celebration of spring (as spring has been celebrated for centuries, complete with bunnies and eggs.)

 

Jumping in where I'd usually not dare...

 

I totally agree with this...and I am Christian. In fact I am ultra conservative Christian. I look at Christian/Christmas as The great Compromise of the Early Church. (Sorry! That is just my view. I don't think anyone is WRONG for celebrating Christmas as a Christian holiday...I just don't myself.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd always heard that the early church could not get the pagans to give up their tree which stood for something...err...utterly pagan I'm sure and made up a reason to have 'Christmas' on that day.

 

That said...I celebrate Christmas. But as Gothic Girl said (I think it was her, pardon if it wasn't) Christmas isn't about Jesus to me. It is about my family and extended family all gathering together to enjoy a day of togetherness.

 

I'd celebrate Christmas even if I wasn't a Christian.

 

And when I say Merry Christmas that means to me...Party On! It means I hope your day if full of joy and laughter and family and friends....in whatever way you choose to celebrate.

 

I've certainly never intended to offend anyone by wishing them a Merry Christmas...but I can understand how it could be offensive. Although I'd not be offended if someone wished me a Happy Solstice.

 

Ok...I've said too much when I usually mostly lurk...except when I occasionally come out to put my foot in my mouth. I just wanted to chime in because I have this discussion with my husband every single year as we are putting lights on the Christmas tree in the corner and the nativity on the shelf. That sounds really screwed up doesn't it. :rolleyes:

 

Oh and P.S. I feel the same way about Easter.

Ooppss...company has arrived ..no time to edit.

[SparrowsNest]

I believe that giving secular humanism a religious label is in the political interests of some Christians. Perhaps it's easier to rally the faithful against an opposing "religion" than a different "world view."

I think it depends on how you're defining the term religion. If you limit it to a narrow "concerned with the supernatural/divine/God/gods/goddesses" then no. But there is a broader use of the term, as described here...

 

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.â€[6] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

The flip side of the "Christians call secular humanism a religion to even the playing field" is the "Secular humanists don't call their belief system a religion in order to more freely impose it on others." So long as secular humanism avoids the 'religion' label, its adherents are able to advocate for its promotion in every aspect of culture while avoiding the separation of church and state question.

 

means "you lost" because you can't or could't find a more viable side to your argument other than "Hitler Did It!"

 

I have no problem with this!! When a person is clutching at straws and Hitler is the last one in their blaze of defeat, then yes, it's a move of desperation. What I have also seen, however, is a legitimate use of Nazism for illustrative purposes being rejected because of this idea that if you talk about Nazis then you are obviously grasping at straws. You're not always at the end of your rope when you bring up Hitler! Sometimes he IS an appropriate example! :)

 

Hope you have a wonderful day (evening?) at work!

[GothicGyrl]

I totally agree with this...and I am Christian. In fact I am ultra conservative Christian. I look at Christian/Christmas as The great Compromise of the Early Church. (Sorry! That is just my view. I don't think anyone is WRONG for celebrating Christmas as a Christian holiday...I just don't myself.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd always heard that the early church could not get the pagans to give up their tree which stood for something...err...utterly pagan I'm sure and made up a reason to have 'Christmas' on that day.

 

Correct.. From the same link that I use to discuss Halloween, is this: http://www.new-life.net/holidays.htm and click on the History of Christmas. The idea that it was a holiday for Pagans did not sit well with the early church and they wanted to take it away from them, so they adopted it as their own holiday, thusly turning it into a "christian holiday".

 

That said...I celebrate Christmas. But as Gothic Girl said (I think it was her, pardon if it wasn't) Christmas isn't about Jesus to me. It is about my family and extended family all gathering together to enjoy a day of togetherness.

 

And presents, don't forget the presents. And lots of food. Good food. Yummy food. I-put-on-25lbs-food. ;)

 

And when I say Merry Christmas that means to me...Party On! It means I hope your day if full of joy and laughter and family and friends....in whatever way you choose to celebrate.

 

No no.. to quote Bill and Ted, it's "Party on, Dude!" ;)

 

Ok...I've said too much when I usually mostly lurk...except when I occasionally come out to put my foot in my mouth. I just wanted to chime in because I have this discussion with my husband every single year as we are putting lights on the Christmas tree in the corner and the nativity on the shelf. That sounds really screwed up doesn't it.

 

Funnily enough, I have a nativity scene that goes up every year. But not because I actually subscribe to what that stands for. Only because it was hand-made by my grandmother and it has sentimental value to me.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

I also believe that secular humanism tends to lend itself to a de-valuation of human life and tyranny when used by those in power (very close to communism). In believing that there is no higher power and we are not created in the image of god, then by default humans are no better than animals to be used, treated and controlled as such. Think of Hitler killing Jews because he felt they were 'vermin'. Not that all secular humanists all think this way, but I do think it can become a slippery slope when practiced by those in power/government.

 

 

Well -- except that Hitler would have probably called himself a Christian. He didn't do all this because he subscribed to a secular humanist philosophy at all. What he did is pretty opposite to a humanist way of thinking. (And against a Christian way of thinking, of course.)

[GothicGyrl]

I have no problem with this!! When a person is clutching at straws and Hitler is the last one in their blaze of defeat, then yes, it's a move of desperation. What I have also seen, however, is a legitimate use of Nazism for illustrative purposes being rejected because of this idea that if you talk about Nazis then you are obviously grasping at straws. You're not always at the end of your rope when you bring up Hitler! Sometimes he IS an appropriate example!

 

JuJu--we could go in circles on this as we are both correct ;), but like you--I've seen the opposite as I stated--Hitler only used when you've nothing left to use. So for me, anyone who brings Hitler in to a non-Hitler related discussion, means they are grasping at straws--something, anything, to make their point. Invoking "Hitler" in an argument that has nothing to do with him is like saying "But but but (with mouth pout)" and then screaming something nonsensical. ;)

 

(for the record, I am NOT calling the poster nonsensical. I'm just illustrating why I feel Hitler shouldn't be brought in to an argument).

 

And then there is always what Pam said. ;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

JuJu--we could go in circles on this as we are both correct ;), but like you--I've seen the opposite as I stated--Hitler only used when you've nothing left to use. So for me, anyone who brings Hitler in to a non-Hitler related discussion, means they are grasping at straws--something, anything, to make their point. Invoking "Hitler" in an argument that has nothing to do with him is like saying "But but but (with mouth pout)" and then screaming something nonsensical. ;)

 

(for the record, I am NOT calling the poster nonsensical. I'm just illustrating why I feel Hitler shouldn't be brought in to an argument).

 

And then there is always what Pam said. ;)

 

I completely respect that you feel this way. I'll probably use Nazi's as an example if it fits, though. (Just so you won't be surprised. :cool:) We must be vigilant that nothing like that ever happens again, and discussing similarities in circumstances of governmental intrusion, public apathy, megalomaniacs, etc. is key to keeping present-day parallels in front of our eyes, IMO. One can't always depend on discussions about Stalin to fill that need.

[GothicGyrl]

Of course, Pam, I wouldn't begrudge anyone the right to bring Hitler up, if, as you say, the topic calls for it.

 

But even then, I guess because I don't believe we will ever reach the level of atrocity he committed, bringing him up should only be used when it is absolutely apropo to the discussion.

 

Now I am truly off to work. I swear it... ;)

[Michelle in MO]

Well -- except that Hitler would have probably called himself a Christian. He didn't do all this because he subscribed to a secular humanist philosophy at all. What he did is pretty opposite to a humanist way of thinking. (And against a Christian way of thinking, of course.)

 

I would agree with all that you said here, Pam, except for the statement that "Hitler would have probably called himself a Christian." My major in college was German, and my honors thesis related to the Nazi regime (specifically, resistance to that regime). Hitler did not consider himself a Christian; the Nazi regime put quite a bit of effort into eradicating so-called Christian holidays and sacraments, i.e, baptism, in an effort to eventually eradicate Christianity and substitute Aryan festivals instead, hearkening back to the earlier Germanic gods like Woden. Christianity was viewed as an offshoot of Judaism, and all things related to Judaism were "verboten."

 

But, of course, I would totally agree with your point that what he did was obviously against a Christian way of thinking. I would be the first to admit that terrible things have been done "in the name of Christ."

 

Here's a few sources that might give further help on this topic:

 

Toland's biography of Hitler is in English and very accessible:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204409093&sr=1-1

 

Joachim Fest's biography of Hitler is in German, although there may be an English translation, and at least at the time of my thesis was considered to be the definitive biography of Hitler:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=MvAJAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Joachim+inauthor:C+inauthor:Fest

 

Here's a short Wikipedia article on the Nazis and their strange views of religion:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

 

HTH!