So peculiar thought to start with- I always used to prefer Hitchens to Dawkins- because as I mentioned yesterday I’m not a fan of militant atheism. So it came as a big surprise to me that I much preferred this to Hitchens’ book. I did enjoy this much more, if partly because it’s actually scientific, […]
I have been inspired to refer to myself as secular instead of atheist lately. This article, by The Orang-utan Librarian, spells out this reasoning succinctly, although they have a different reason for reacting and a different objective in doing so. My reasoning, which I spell out in other posts, is that atheists should be reluctant to adopt that title. Instead, secular is a much better moniker, because secular only says what you’re for, equal treatment for all regardless of their religious beliefs, and atheism distinctly says what you’re against, religion in all its forms. I don’t hate religion; in fact, the way I was raised, in a deeply religious household, is directly responsible for the way I feel about religion. I think religion has done a grand service for mankind by teaching us how we should act in order to garner recognition or infamy. Throughout the years, atheism has been inextricably linked with communism. Stalin, Marx, and other proponents of it have been staunch advocates of atheism, even claiming that religion should be avoided at all costs. No matter what anyone does, atheism will be linked with communism for a long time. “Secularism” is ingrained in the U.S. Constitution and in many other government documents throughout the civilized world. As such, it pertains to an idea held in highest regard among educated circles and doesn’t contain any of the dogma which accompanies atheism.