Talk:Secularity/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Secularity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Different articles?

Shouldn't these be different articles altogether, given that they concern different meanings? Neonumbers 09:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islamic fundamentalists

I think the line "Nowadays, all major religions accept this, except for significant schools in Islam (which proclaim just the opposite)." should be removed as i would dispute this. I would suggest it would be true for all religious fundamentalists not just Islamic ones (who receive a large amount of media coverage currently).

"Even in the US, Christian Fundamentalists struggle with the concept of democracy, calling, for example, the seperation of church and state to be abolished and for the constitution to declare the US a 'Christian country'" http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825201.200

edit: The wikipedia article on secularism has this to say "However, fundamentalism opposes secularism. The two largest religious fundamentalist groups in the world are fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. Secularism in India is challenged by Hindu Nationalism."

Article title and content

This article should be renamed something like Secularity_astronomical. Secular should redirect to Secularism since a lot more people probably want the nonreligious sense of the term instead of the astronomical one. I'd do that if I knew how, but I'm new to wikipedia. 32.97.110.142 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of "Mosque, Church, Synagogue - related" vs. simply using "church-related" is ridiculous, considering a mosque and a synagogue are strictly buildings, while church in the sense of separation of church and state is clearly a metaphysical collection of believers. Church, from the Greek "Ekklesia" refers to a community, and so in this sense, any religious group could be referred to as a "church." Drop the politically correct in favor of the lexically accurate. (I'd also like to add that if you want to be ultra obnoxiously politically correct you should find out what the Hebrew word for "Synagogue" is, because Synagogue is also Greek,and as we all know, no one who isn't Christian could ever tolerate being called something that implies a link to a Christian culture or heritage). Separation of Church and State inherently means that the state cannot interfere with a person's freedom of religion or the beliefs and practices of a given faith (It's separation of State from Church, actually). To imply otherwise would mean that the Nation of Islam is within its rights to hold temporal power in the US government while the Catholic Church is not...which is incorrect. Boyakasha.

Disambiguated

I have disambiguated the wildly different parts of this article. I hope this is sufficient. I have also tried to distinguish secularity (a matter-of-fact condition of not being church-related) from secularism (an ideology).

Paul 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Collegiatism in the High Middle Ages

One point that I would like to put forward regarding the definition of secularism in the Mediaeval European sense, is that it was non-monastic, rather than non-religious. Collegiate churches with Augustinian canons and prebendaries were considered secular. So to the clergymen that formed the teaching staff and undergraduates of the universities of the time. see Erasmus, Copernicus, John Knox, Alesius &c. Brendandh 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Try to protect this page, a toddlers been vandalising it.Warlord dehacker 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Warlord Dehacker

Eating?

Whoah. Mulims are told to eat Halal whilst Jews must eat Kosher food. I don't think therefore that eating is a secular activity. I also reference from The Merchant of Venice, where Shylock refuses to eat with his christian counter-parts, "but I will not eat with you drink with you, nor pray with you". Tourskin 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The information contained is not wrong, but, as you said, doesn't represent a worldwide view on the subject. I'm going to change the examples provided, and if anyone objects, revert it and discuss in here.--Orthologist 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge with Secularism

I strongly oppose this merge as secularity and secularism are entirely distinct concepts (see above discussion). The former is a descriptive term for a state of being not religious and the latter is a descriptive term for one of many ideologies which promote this state of being in one way or another. Any up to date dictionary, as well as the good work of Wikipedia editors can verify this distinction. Also, as a point of information, there are several other entries like secularization which are also clearly distinct but just as related to secularity as secularism is.PelleSmith 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Secular, secularity, secularism, secularization, secularist, and secularly are all the same word in different forms. As with most words, the words can represent multiple concepts. When "ity" is added to the end of a word, it indicates the state. When "ism" is added to the end of a word, it indicates the idea or concept. When "ization" is added to the end of a word, it indicates changing towards. It would be much clearer to include all of these words in one article where the differences could be explained. As such, I strongly support this merge.—Who123 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Secularity vs. Secularism

This entry is not about Secularism, Agnosticism, Atheism or related ideologies. Adherents to those ideologies (or whatever you wish to call them) may in fact promote a "secular" public sphere or even a totally "secular" way of life (as per the definition of "secularity"). This is clear, for instance, in the reference Who123 keeps on adding to "secular.org". However, its is not an appropriate reference because it is actually only an example, and one that represents an minority usage at that. Surely many organizations and individuals who promote secularity do so partly because they equate religion with the belief in God, and/or because the aspect of religion they wish to remove from the public sphere is the system of belief. Secularity, however is defined, and understood, primarily in relation to Religion and not to belief in God. Many, if not most, people who self describe as "secular" may also consider themselves "spiritual" (but not institutionally religious) or simply undecided in terms of beliefs in some transcendent authority. Additionally, or conversely, religious people who oppose secularity as something to strive for, speak of people promoting secularity in public and private realms as "secularists"--not as "secular" or "seculars". Again, the problem here is that atheists and agnostics may in fact be "secular" but the terms are in no way synonymous. In fact you can have atheists who claim to be "religious" on cultural and social grounds--and don't laugh because I know at least one physicist who thinks the idea of God is absurd but who claims a religious affiliation based upon his family background and how he celebrates certain holidays. For all intents and purposes this individual is not "secular", though clearly an "atheist". This may be an extreme example but it illustrates the problem because religion is much more than simply "belief in God", and secularity is defined in terms of religion and not God. Until there is a persuasive case that current usage of the term "secular" is synonymous with "atheist" or "agnostic" (which I do not believe it is) we should stick with the "traditional" usage PelleSmith 13:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)anyway. PelleSmith 13:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

'Note to Who123 BTW, why do you keep on removing the section on "secularism", which is clearly a "related concept?"PelleSmith 14:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how one can say that this article is not about Secularism when secularity is defined as "The condition or quality of being secular." They are all related words, as you say. When I first came across this article I noted that it was completely unsourced. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. As such, the article is subject to deletion. In order to begin the citation process I added the "Notes" section and one reference. As I understand this article it is about secularity involving all non-religious aspects. This includes but is not restricted to agnostics and atheism. I agree that there are many variations on this theme. I did not remove the section on "secularism". I moved it to the introduction where it belongs. This is perhaps the most predominant theme of this article in the U.S. today given the political and legal activity including supreme court actions. I ask that you leave the changes that I have made to the article as it is the only part of the article currently cited. I hope that all can work together on this article in a cordial atmosphere of mutual respect. Please allow me to revert it to the few changes I have made so that each aspect of the article can be discussed as needed. Thank you.—Who123 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then lets discuss it. You haven't dealt with any of my comments. Your edits entirely remove "secularism" and then added a statement which is simply wrong about "secular" commonly referring to people who are "atheists" and "agnostics". In fact the very problem I have attempted to identify is this same false conflation of secularity, as a state of being not-religious, and secularism as an ideology claiming that such a state is preferable or otherwise promoting it. This entry is about the former and not the latter. In fact there is a separate entry on Secularism (as well as Agnosticism and Atheism). The way you have re-written the entry drastically alters its meaning. It now claims that "secularity", as being "non-religious" is the "traditional" way of understanding the term while contemporary usage refers to those who "do not believe in God". I am not denying that there are people who do not believe in God who call themselves secular (and for good reason), but that is not what the term means. This is like saying that "traditionally blue is a term used for one of the primary colors, but currently the term often refers to smurfs." Just as smurfs are blue, so are most agnostics and atheists secular--clearly no one will deny this. But that isn't what you are saying. What you have written is akin to: "currently blue often refers to a small group of beings called smurfs." If you wrote, "currently many individuals who do not believe in God refer to themselves as secular," then the problem would be averted. However, that fact does not cover "secularism" as a concept related to secularity in the least. Again I would as why has it been removed?PelleSmith 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult to discuss my edits when you keep reverting the article. You are blocking me from editing the article in good faith. You do not own the article. You are edit warring and have violated the 3RR. Please allow my edits so that they can be discussed.—Who123 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits can be discussed whether he allows them or not. You don't need to force them into the article to be able to talk about them. Go ahead and talk. Kafziel ^Talk 22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

? "force them into the article" ? Forgive my ignorance but I thought WP encouraged editors to be be bold in editing with cited material. I also thought that per Wikipedia:Verifiability uncited material is without standing and subject to change and deletion of material at any time. Why are you supporting a completely unsourced article against my attempts to edit it and add source material?—Who123 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Being bold does not include being disruptive. Once someone else has reverted you, it's time to stop editing and start discussing. Except in biographies of living people, unsourced material should be marked with a {{fact}} tag and discussed before deleting it out of hand. And, whether your material is sourced or unsourced, nobody is allowed to edit war. Kafziel ^Talk 02:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let us begin with basic definitions then. What is the definition of secularity? The article as it is now is not useful as it is completely unsourced. I looked in my Merriam-Webster dictionary and found this:

"secular"

Function:adjective Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime Date:14th century

1 a - of or relating to the worldly or temporal *secular concerns* b - not overtly or specifically religious *secular music* c - not ecclesiastical or clerical *secular courts* *secular landowners* 2 - not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically - of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation *a secular priest*

secularity noun

secularly adverb

"Secularism" is not listed in the dictionary.

What is your sourced definition of "secularity" and what is your sourced definition of "secularism"? Are they not just different forms of the same word, secular?—Who123 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No they are not at all the same. Have you even bothered to look at Secularism or to look it up in the dictionary. Secularism has its own entry as you can see. If the entry lacks sources then it lacks sources, but that doesn't mean we should add nonsense to it.PelleSmith 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just pointed out above that "Secularism" is not listed in my dictionary. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. This article is all OR and not fit for WP as it is. Instead of arguing with me, perhaps you may wish to work on citing the article. Have fun and good luck!—Who123 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The secularism entry is sourced, perhaps not well enough, but it is sourced--and I can give you plenty of other sources on "secularism". The definition of secularity operative here can be found in any dictionary and it is rather obviously distinct from secularism. If you use an up to date dictionary, such as the Oxford English Dictionary online version, or Merriam Webster online [which is free here http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism] you will find "secularism" defined and again distinct from "secularity". One of the reasons why it is difficult to source this entry is because secularity is so basic. In fact it is possible that the entry shouldn't exist, and that secularity should only have a Wiktionary entry. That possibility, and/or the fact that it is poorly referenced is still not a valid reason to put in wrong information. Also, the entry is clearly not all "OR" since it abides by the basic dictionary definition of "secularity" as a state of being not religious. Attacking the article, and charging me with fixing it, seems like a some sour grapes. Cheers.PelleSmith 11:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The adjective form of "secularism" is "secularistic" and NOT "secular". This can easily be seen in at Merriam Webster Online or at Dictionary.com.PelleSmith 13:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Let us see what your sources actually say: Merriam Webster Online - secularism = "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations". Merriam Webster Online - Secularity refers to "secular" = "not overtly or specifically religious". Merriam Webster Online does not support the distinct difference in meaning between the two forms of the word that is suggested by separate articles on WP. Dictionary.com - secularism = "1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element." Dictionary.com - Secularity = "secular views or beliefs; secularism". Dictionary.com actually equates the two terms in complete opposition to your position, rather than supporting it. —Who123 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

Could we have the definition of "Secular Violence" added as this is often used on news programs which deal with Noerthern Irland and the Middle East?

--ManInStone 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "sectarian violence" which is in fact quite the opposite. If you do not mean "sectarian violence", please elaborate because I am unfamiliar with "secular violence" as a cohesive or commonly used concept. Thanks.PelleSmith 11:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you PelleSmith for pointing out my error. Now these terms make more sense to me! --194.176.105.39 12:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Secularity and Secularism are vastly different

Attention, Wikipedians! Although (obviously) the words secularity and secularism derive from the same root, they have divergent meanings, at times even opposite meanings. These two concepts should not be confused with one another. Nor should either be confused with atheism.

Would you make objectivity synonymous with Objectivism? Is science the same thing as Scientology? To bring up a more painful example, is there any difference between Islam and Islamism? The words come from the same root, don't they?

The secularity and secularism articles most definitely need to remain separate. Additionally, neither should be a part of WikiProject Atheism, for reasons that should be obvious, but which I will present nonetheless, since many seem not to understand this.

Secularity

Anything that is not church-related (or, by extension, not affiliated with any other religious organization such as a synagogue, mosque, or ashram) is secular. This is the definition of the word "secularity." This is a simple term, the meaning of which is easy to comprehend. It does not imply political activism, anticlericalism, or any of that. It also does not imply atheism -- that which is strictly secular does not address religion either in a positive sense or a negative sense, but is instead unrelated to religion.

Christopher Hitchens' anti-religious tirade God is not Good, for instance, hardly qualifies as a secular piece of writing, since it is all about organized religion, albeit in a negative sense. One might describe Hitchens, I suppose, as a devout atheist.

Newborn babies are secular. How can I say that? I can say it because they are not church-related (nor mosque-, ashram-, etc.) Similarly, and self-evidently, Wikipedia is secular -- it is not controlled by the Catholic Church, nor is it a Buddhist or Shinto organization, etc. In fact, most organizations in the United States and Western Europe today (consider corporations, the ACLU, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, your bird-watching club, or your bowling league, for instance) are secular organizations.

The Roman Catholic Church, Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, synagogues, mosques, and ashrams are not secular -- they are the opposite, the word for which is usually "religious." In a vaguer sense, the National Council of Churches (in the USA) is a religious organization. National Right-to-Life (an anti-abortion organzation in the USA) could be interpreted as a religious or secular organization, depending on what argument you wish to make -- this organization is nominally independent of any religious organization, but it has obvious Catholic and Evangelical influences.

Anything that is not church related?!?!? You need to define church here. Do you mean the building structure or do you mean Christianity? According to the definition, church buildings would be secular. However, if you mean the latter, Christianity advocates separation of church and state for that is a Biblical idea. You seem to be confusing the contrast between Secularism and other anti-materialistic religions and world views such as Gnosticism, Manichaeism, the Beatniks and at least some sects of Buddhism. In other words, you are not giving antonyms for secular(ity) but antonyms for secularism. I do not know if you can say newborn babies are secular. Are you saying that newborn babies have no soul? There are secular aspects to every person i.e. the physical body. Reread the definition of secular. The best definition for secular since it is such a broad term is non-moral. This will account why secularism and all world view's i.e. atheism, humanism, naturalism, scientism, etc. are not secular (for they all advocate some form of morality). The secular pertains to physics as opposed to metaphysics and non-morality as opposed to morality.Adriansrfr (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

- You are making this topic much, much more complicated than it actually is. Let me take your remarks and comment on them in order.
  - Of course church/synagogue/mosque/ashram/etc. refers to the religious organization, not the building. Don't be silly. I used the phrase "religious organization" parenthetically -- did you see it?
  - I agree with you that "separation of church and state" is a Biblical idea. It is specifically a New Testament idea. ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's.") However, many self-identified Christians do not agree with this idea, the New Testament notwithstanding. Those who agree (mainline protestants in the United States, for instance) are religious, not secular, but they are secularists in the mild sense of advocating separation of church and state. Those who disagree (some fundamentalists, for instance) are religious, not secular -- and they are anti-secularist, in other words theocratic.
  - Of course newborn babies are secular. They are not involved in any organized religion -- at least not yet. This implies nothing pro or con about whether newborn babies have souls.
  - Your "confusing the contrast" sentence is largely indecipherable. I am not even sure it is a sentence. However, neither secularity nor secularism is "materialistic," nor is either "anti-materialistic," so attempts at deciphering this material are probably pointless.
  - I gave antonyms for secularism in response to your comments, but not here originally. (The best such antonym is probably theocracy.)
  - No, secularity is not "non-moral," nor is it necessarily moral. Are you contending that no morality exists apart from organized religion? To make such an assumption is highly offensive to vast numbers of people, as well as being factually incorrect.
  - You continue to jump back and forth between "secular" and "secularism" as though they were the same. You also continue to claim (for no apparent reason) that they are the same. They are not the same at all. "Secular" is a simple and objective description, while "secularism" is a political ideology. Furthermore, neither is the same as atheism, humanism, etc., which should be perfectly obvious, although apparently it is not.
- Stepping back and taking a broad view of your remarks, you seem to proceed from assumptions that both "secular" and "secularism" are pejorative terms, that they both denote soullessness and amorality and perhaps even a disregard for philosophical considerations. Those are foolish assumptions, possibly even hateful ones. Even if you believe that everyone outside organized religion is hopelessly doomed, that emphatically does not mean that you know what those people are like. Those hypothetically doomed people also have differences of opinion from each other, by the way. And if you have a soul, then they also have souls. Paul (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Secularism

To be secularist is to take a political position, advocating either the separation of church and state, so that there is no established state religion; or the exclusion of any sort of religious argument from political debate. This is the definition of the word "secularism." There are a lot of subtleties and fine distinctions associated with secularism. The mild version of this term is a much more popular political view than the extreme version.

The Separation of Church and State was to keep any one state Christian denomination from being the federal denomination over all the states like the Anglican Church and other state religions. Adriansrfr (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

- Please note that I used "separation of church and state" in lower case, referring to the general concept in all nations and times, not the specific one in the USA in 1788. It is true, but irrelevant to the present discussion, that the primary meaning of this concept in the USA in 1788 was in making distinctions among various Christian denominations -- not in dealing with atheists or with adherents of non-Christian religions. Even in the USA, however, the concept began to broaden very soon after 1788, as for example in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796. Paul (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Newborn babies are obviously not secularist -- they have no political views at all. Similarly, Wikipedia is not secularist -- one of the principles of our loosely organized organization is that it does not advocate any specific political viewpoint, and certainly not this one. The ACLU is a secularist organization, at least in the moderate sense, but most if not all corporations are not. The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, your bird-watching club, and your bowling league are not secularist organizations, because they are not in the business of political advocacy.

The ACLU is not merely secular but blatantly embrace the world view of secular humanism if not atheism and whose founder was a member of the Communist Party USA. The rest of what you said follows, but the ACLU is not a neutral analogy so to compare Wikipedia to the ACLU is very suspect. Wikipedia is involved in accurate factual description.Adriansrfr (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

- Please read my remarks before you object to them -- I was CONTRASTING the ACLU with Wikipedia, not implying that they were the same. They are vastly different. ACLU, as I said, is not merely secular but has a secularist ideology -- whether it is mild or extreme in this regard is a matter of opinion. Wikipedia, as I said, does NOT have such an ideology. Paul (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Minority religious organizations in any part of the world -- such as Quakers everywhere, Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere, Mormons everywhere except in Utah, Jews everywhere except in Israel, Moslems in any country with a Christian majority, the Roman Catholic Church in areas that are mostly Protestant -- inevitably must take a secularist viewpoint, at least in the moderate sense of Secularism. The reason is that the establishment of a majority state religion would be adverse to the interests of all minority religions in that state.

So you see, it is perfectly normal, routine, and common ...

for a secular organization to also be secularist (ACLU for instance);
for a secular organization to be entirely neutral on the secularist/anti-secularist issue (your bowling league or General Electric for instance)
for a religious organization to be anti-secularist (for instance, the Roman Catholic Church in countries where they wish to retain the advantages of being a state religion);
for a religious organization to be secularist (Jehovah's Witnesses for instance).

Atheism

Atheism is a particular belief system (or one might say, a system of anti-belief). It is tempting to say that all atheists are secular -- i.e. that atheism is a subcategory of secularity -- but this view may not be accurate. A truly devout atheist may be evangelical in his zeal to spread the word about the nonexistence of God and the benefits of nonbelief. Indeed, for some, Atheism may itself amount to a religion. Consider the Brights, for instance.

Newborn babies are not atheists -- they simply have developed no opinion on religion at all, so they are, in a vague sense, agnostics.

Wikipedia is not an atheist organization -- it does not advocate for any position, including this one.

None of the organizations previously cited (except the Brights) are atheist organizations, although many of them are entirely neutral on the question of religious belief.

The relationship of atheism to secularism and secularity is peripheral at best.

Those who conflate these categories are sometimes religious zealots possessed of the belief that "Anyone who is not with us is against us," so that even people who have never heard of their particular religion are regarded as enemies.

Paul 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Secular and Secularist

The word "secular" is an adjective, the noun form of which is "secularity". In accordance with Wikipedia custom, the article on Secularity is titled using the noun, even though the adjective is a much more frequently used word in English.
The word "secularist" is an adjective, the noun form of which is "secularism". In accordance with Wikipedia custom, the article on Secularism is titled using the noun. In this case, the noun is used more frequently than the adjective in English.
The word "secularist" is also used as a noun, referring to a person who is an adherent of the ideology called "secularism".

That is where it fits in, Dr. Who. Paul (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does this fit in? Although I understand the differences some are trying to make here between Secularity and Secularism, I see them as variations on the same word that refer to the religious (or perhaps more properly non-religious) use of the word (as opposed to, say, the economic use). It is obvious that atheism is quite different and deserves its own article. I have yet to see the sources to demonstrate that two articles are appropriate for Secularity and Secularism. As an example, look at the article on Love with its multiple meanings.—Who123 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

non religiousity is an incorrect definition actually. This heading may cause misunderstandings among the religious readers. Just "secularity" or "secularity (religion equality)" would be better. Who123 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The current title is malformed. Either Secularity (disambiguation) or Secularity (non-religiosity) needs to be moved to Secularity, since parentheses are certainly unnecessary for one of the two. Since secularity currently redirects here, and since there are concerns about the accuracy of the parenthetical identifier for this article, it seems sensible to move this article back to Secularity. Are there any objections? -Silence 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good and logical decision.JBarreto 23:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes again to Silence. Who's Who, any way?JBarreto 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

secular realignment

The realigning election article mentions a "secular realignment". If I were to linkify that phrase, which article should I link it to?

No existing article is ideal for that purpose. If you don't want to create an article called Secular realignment, then probably the best bet among existing articles would be Secular variation. Paul (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the articles listed on secularity (disambiguation)? Why am I not discussing this on Talk:Secularity (disambiguation)? Because that talk page redirects me to here, "Talk:Secularity".

--75.19.73.101 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

probably inaccurate statement

"All of the state universities in the United States are secular organizations (especially because of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution)"

There is no citation or support in the article for the parenthetical statement. It is an unsupported supposition which provides nothing of value to subject matter of the overall article and serves only as means to disseminate a political position and possibly disinformation. The First Amendment of the US Constitution, as written, specifically addresses laws made by Congress. Its applicability to State laws, and State Universities, has not been established. In fact, the belief that State Universities are required to be secular may itself be contrary to the First Amendment. I believe that the 1st Amendment, as written, specifically protects the right of the States and citizens to Freedom OF religion, free from federal intervention. The statement appears to imply the contrary, that the First Amendment requires freedom FROM religion, which requires the federal government to meddle in State and personal affairs. I realize that this page is not the place to debate these issues, but wanted to provide adequate support for my observation. This is my first attempt at providing feedback regarding an article, so I did not attempt to edit the actual text myself to remove the statement. I'll leave that to the judgement of more experienced contributors.

76.73.167.74 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Peter

Indeed, in the 18th century the states were unconstrained in this matter, as you said. But in the present day, the "incorporation" of the First Amendment into the restrictions on state government action (based on the Fourteenth Amendment) has rendered the states subject to the First Amendment provisions. Pardon my imprecise (abbreviated) legal terminology. I have fixed it now. Paul (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bangladesh?

The map shows Bangladesh as having a "state religion". But Bangladesh is secular. The article on Bangladesh also states so. I think the map should be modified to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.77.201 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The status for Norway have changed.

Copied this text from Religion_in_Norway#Disestablishment_of_the_Church_of_Norway

In May 2012, a parliamentary committee report was presented which unanimously recommended the dissolution of ties between the state and the Church of Norway. Norway shows the way by separating church and state (National Secular Society) A constitutional amendment was presented to parliament with wide support, making Norway formally a secular country with no official religion, in which all religions and philosophies have equal legal standing.

"Norway Change in Church-State Relations". Library of Congress website (loc.gov). 6 June 2012. Retrieved 23 June 2012.

Agge.se (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldent this page and the "Secular state" page be under the same scope?