Talk:Secularized Language

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'd like to organize these into categories - not divided up, maybe - with secularized expressions at the top (e.g., Thank God => thank goodness). Terms indicating a total shift of concept like Bible Study => fundamentalism might come later. Everyone okay with this? --Ed Poor Talk 08:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Sounds good to me! How about giving it a try and let's see how it looks.--Andy Schlafly 09:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)
To be fair, many more conservative Christians (my mother, for example), use some of the so-called "secular expressions" because they take a strict line on taking the Lord's name in vain. She would, for example, rather not say "Thank God" unless she was quite literally thanking the deity. Indeed, I believe that is how the "thank goodness" construction originally evolved. --Jdixon 12:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)
That might well be, Jdixon--certainly, it's laudable to take seriously the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain--but I don't think very many Christians would see a heartfelt "Thank God!" as inappropriate in many circumstances. Thus, while your mother's conscientiousness is admirable, I don't think such conscientiousness is a sufficient explanation for the systematic removal of religious language from the public square. Certainly, I think that some people choose "Thank goodness" out of a concern for propriety, but I think many more choose it out of a desire to avoid giving offense, or simply because it's what they're most used to hearing. Perhaps a section on differing reasons for using these terms could be included in the article; after all, this is supposed to be an examination of the issue. --Benp 13:34, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Washington's Birthday/President's Day

While this is a case of P.C., it's not a case of secularized language. Last I checked, George Washington was not a sacred personage. Martyp 13:47, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Washington was a prominent Christian whose habit of praying and appealing to God for assistance is well-known. He was a kind of saint, and the downplaying of his (indisputable) significance is due to his Christianity. If he had been an atheist then you'd see the opposite effect.--Andy Schlafly 14:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)
What kind of a saint was George Washington? --JohannesZ 15:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)
The kind that wins wars. There have been other examples. Have you ever heard of Joan of Arc?--Andy Schlafly 16:02, 22 February 2011 (EST)
Canonized in 1920, right? When did the Church recognize Washington as a saint? Martyp 16:17, 22 February 2011 (EST)
@Andy: Aye. She still needed miracles credited to her. [1] --JohannesZ 16:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)
I don't think all Christian churches have the same rules.--Andy Schlafly 16:23, 22 February 2011 (EST)
Undoubtedly. So which churches DO recognize Washington as a saint or other type of sacred being? Martyp 16:26, 22 February 2011 (EST)
Perhaps the church of Satan does, or perhaps atheists simply dislike Washington. Wouldn't that be enough to explain the misnaming of the holiday as described in the entry?--Andy Schlafly 16:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)
I'm pretty sure that The Church of Satan does not acknowledge George Washington as divine. If there's any evidence -- a tract from an angry atheist decrying a celebration of the Christian Washington and demanding a holiday that accommodates the Presidents that were not Christians, I've yet to find one. Martyp 16:37, 22 February 2011 (EST)
Marty, bias doesn't work that way. You're not likely to find such an angry tract about any of the items on the list.
Atheistic bias, like other forms of bias, seeks to downplay and minimize Christianity. Washington was a leading, accomplished Christian. Lincoln far less so, other presidents even lesser still, and the office of president not Christian at all. An atheistic bias pushes language from the Christian recognition to the more atheistic substitute.--Andy Schlafly 18:15, 22 February 2011 (EST)
I agree with Andy here; the greater the Christianity of an historical figure, the more the atheistic revisionists will try to downplay his significance. PeterUker 18:24, 22 February 2011 (EST)
How can President's Day even be considered remotely secularized as it was never a religiously themed event to begin with? The reason we have President's Day is due to the hesitation and the unwillingness of conservatives in the southeast to celebrate Lincoln's birthday as vilified he was as in infringing on "state's rights," and removing their "Peculiar institution." This contrasts to other locations in the country who celebrated both Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday in two different events. Furthermore, the Federal Government was disinterested in granting two Monday's off for federal employees, so came the compromise of celebrating a day between Lincoln's and Washington's birthday.JustinU 21:46, 22 February 2011 (EST)
Lincoln never had a stature comparable to Washington, and it's not merely because southerners disliked Lincoln. The attempt to equate Lincoln to Washington as a joint federal holiday was a farce and never got off the ground.
But atheists downplay Washington just as they downplay other accomplished Christians. It's irrelevant whether the holiday was ever "religiously themed." A day honoring a prominent Christian has been diluted and even misnamed. It's the same secularization seen in replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays."--Andy Schlafly 22:27, 22 February 2011 (EST)
Mr. Aschlafly, I am unsure if you are purposefully misapplying my point so that your argument appears to be stronger, but I feel that your point is less than successively argued. In fact, the reason that Lincoln is trumpeted as being one of the greatest Presidents to have ever had the honor of holding the office is because, pointedly, history holds him comparable to George Washington in regards to leadership and vision for the country. I am also at ends with your rather presuming statement of Washington's Christianity, considering the well documented Enlightenment-era beliefs he held associated with his principles as a Freemason, a largely deist organization.JustinU 00:44, 23 February 2011 (EST)
JustinU, it is well documented in Washington's own writings as well as the writings of those who knew him that he was a committed Christian within the Episcopalian Church. The "deist" allegation is from the late-20th century only. Karajou 00:57, 23 February 2011 (EST)
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia correctly declares and supports the doctrine that every true Christian believer is a saint.[2] The Apostle Paul wrote: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1: 1-6) Washington appears to have been a true Christian.[3] Therefore, George Washington was a saint. Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :) conservative 04:33, 23 February 2011 (EST)

A few questions

A few of the words here don't really seem to fit in the list. For example:

  • Resurrection Sunday -> Easter
"Easter" does have pagan origins, but the Pope says "Easter Sunday", not "Resurrection Sunday" - see[4] and [5]. In fact, a Google search of the Vatican website doesn't find "Resurrection Sunday" at all, except a few times with commas in between.
  • Washington's Birthday -> President's Day
It's not secularization as far as I can tell. And President's Day honors Lincoln as well. Silly political correctness, maybe. Secularization, no.
  • Pagan -> Secular
Pagan usually refers to belief in multiple gods, while secular refers to something separate from religion (e.g. the Turkish government is secular because there is no state religion).
  • God bless you -> Gesundheit
Gesundheit is what Germans have always said after a sneeze. Many European countries have the same kind of response. Nobody ever says "God bless you" in German. "Gesundheit" is as old as "God bless you", and the people who say it got the idea from German-Americans.

DouglasL 14:18, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Pagan definition: one who has little or no religion. Secular definition: not overtly or specifically religious. --Jpatt 14:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)
Merriam-Webster Online: Pagan Secular
The first definition for "pagan" is a follower of a polytheistic religion - notice "polytheistic religion". Secular is not overtly or specifically religious. There's a difference, and in order to claim that "secular" is a redefinition of "pagan" you have to completely ignore the first definition of "pagan". There's probably another word that could be used as the precursor of "secular" (Atheist?), but it's not "pagan". DouglasL 12:58, 23 February 2011 (EST)
To clarify: I do think that the word "secular" and maybe "pagan" belong on this list, but not together. Maybe "atheist" -> "secular" and "pagan" -> "Wiccan" or such? DouglasL 18:28, 23 February 2011 (EST)

The Saint's Days

  • Valentine's Day is no longer officially the feast day for St. Valentine, which definitely explains on some level why the "St" has been dropped from the name. February 14th is now the feast day for Cyril and Methodius, this changed in 1969 under Pope Paul the V, I think.
  • Paddy for St. Patrick's Day makes logical sense in that Paddy is a celtic diminutive for Padrig, which is Anglicized to Patrick. I've never actually heard it as Paddy's Day, I've always heard it as "St. Paddy's Day"
  • Resurrection Sunday has been called Easter since at the very least the AD 600s. St. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People written in the early 700s refers to it as Easter, although he does admit it is tied to the Pagan festival of Eostre he still uses the term Easter. I don't think it is logical to use Easter as an example of modern society trying to erase Christian influence from daily life, I think it is simply a continuation of a name that is well over 1,000 years old.

just my thoughts, good luck.--IScott 19:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Interesting comments, but they don't contradict the observation of bias. Practicing Catholics are a small minority in the United States and Western Europe, so the relevance of the Church's changing of the feast day for St. Valentine hardly seems dispositive. As to your second point, the "logical sense" is very strained in denying credit where it is due. As to your third point, Christians refer to Easter as Resurrection Sunday to this day, just fewer of them. And there was bias in 600 A.D. too.--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)
I too have never heard paddy's day, it is always proceeded by the "St.". While catholics may be a minority in the west one exception to that is Ireland (the only country in the EU with out abortion) and I think the secular consciousness still associates Ireland with Catholicism. --AlaskanEconomy 21:50, 22 February 2011 (EST)
I agree that the actual Saint's days have been marginalized, and that the meaning of the holidays hold almost no religious meaning anymore. Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day not as a saint's feast but as a day to meaninglessly celebrate their Irish-ness and dye rivers green and over-indulge in drinking alcohol, and Valentine's Day is a day to celebrate love and has very little to do with the old saint's feast.
However, I stand firm on my third point, I find it highly unlikely that Saint Bede, venerated in both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, who is also considered a Doctor of the Church to be biased towards an unchristian term. In the 700s Bede refers to it as Easter and it has been called Easter by the English people and English speakers since at least then. For well over 1,000 years the majority of devout English Christians have called it Easter, and thus its use cannot be a modern attempt to try to obscure Christian origins.--IScott 23:22, 22 February 2011 (EST)
I agree that the use of Easter is not a modern secularization, but I still wonder whether its use was influenced by pagan tendencies in the first millennium. I have no quarrel with Saint Bede but am not sure he named it. He may well have been an expert about God but that does not make one an expert about bias. Quite the contrary: Jesus said the people of faith do not quickly recognize the tricks of the worldly.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

A small correction about one of my role models. Bede is not a saint although, as IScott pointed out, he is a Doctor of the Church. His tomb, in Durham Cathedral, is worth a visit! Rafael

Thanks for correcting that!--Andy Schlafly 01:05, 1 March 2011 (EST)
I don't mean to be harsh, but you are mistaken Rafael, Bede is a Saint. He is often refered to as just "the venerable" but he is a Saint so I can see where you might be confused. He is venerated in the Anglican Communion as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Even Conservapedia's own entry on Bede has an icon that says "St. Bede." Furthermore a google search of Saint Bede shows that there are a variety of churches named in his honor, in Williamsburg, VA there is a Catholic Church called St. Bede's Catholic Church, as well as an Anglican Church of St. Bede in Scarborough, ON, Canada, and a variety of churches and Parish schools in England. In the Episcopal Church Bede's feast day is May 25th. Bede is very much a Saint. Hope that clears up the Sainthood of Bede!--IScott 16:42, 2 March 2011 (EST)
I agree with others on how Easter is considered Secularized? Easter takes place around the Jewish Passover and is actually called Pascha in the Original Greek in the NT. Pascha is Greek for Pesach which Pesach is Hebrew for Passover from the OT. Pascha and Pesach are the same word. In Latin vulgate the word for Easter and Passover is Paska, my point. Easter and Passover are the same word in the historical Greek text. It wasn't until Tyndale when translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek scriptures into English—for there was no Passover, only Pesach(Hebrew)/Pascha(Greek)—needed a way to separate the Jewish Passover from the Resurrection, and thus he creates Easter and Passover. Easter is an anglicized version of the Germanic word Oster which in German means auferstehung or Resurrection. To simply sum up, there is someone who is much better adept at explaining than I am and I urge someone to watch and critique "Easter is NOT Pagan". On a final note, Easter is used in the KJV Bible, so is the King James Bible somehow written by secularist Liberals? -- Austenbosten 20:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Perversion diversity

As I understand it this is a list of words that are backward compatible to former religious meanings. We could stop saying Happy Holidays as a society and say Merry Christmas. I'd hate to think of what bigots we would appear to be if we started calling diversity perversion. "Have a lot of people off all different races, creeds, and colors working at your company, you are perverted!" or "A black man marrying a white woman, that's a perverted couple!" Since I doubt that anyone here thinks that way (and if they do maybe they should find somewhere else to be) then I think that should be pulled from the list for now. --AlaskanEconomy 20:01, 22 February 2011 (EST)

'Diversity' is a word used often by liberals and others who push the homosexual agenda, claiming that ongoing homosexualization is in the name of diversity. As a conservative and one who reads the Bible daily, I find same-sex marriage perverse, yet liberals such as yourself would refer to such things as diverse. Hence, your non-sequiturs aside, I feel the entry should remain. PeterUker 20:10, 22 February 2011 (EST)
A) You didn't address my point
B) Perversion isn't a religious word any more than right and wrong. Are math teachers helping to keep Christianity vibrant and alive by assigning problems which are later graded as right and wrong?
C) How ever often you claim to read the bible doesn't really matter here. This is the internet, anyone can claim to read the bible. however much they want. --AlaskanEconomy 20:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)
I'd have to weigh in with AE on this. Although, specifically, "diversity" is becoming a by-word, diversity is an old word and refers to more than just homosexualization, by keeping it as is gives those advocates legitimacy and (in the end) we end up losing a serviceable word. DevonJ 21:06, 22 February 2011 (EST)
We could make several categories of terms which have normal vs. liberal counterparts. Not all such pairs are examples of secularization. Some merely reflect the liberal worldview. --Ed Poor Talk 22:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)
Diversity is more an example of liberals distorting the meaning of a word, the way I see it. I wouldn't call the original meaning of "diversity" an example of perversion, but advocates of the homosexual agenda try to make it into a different word. DouglasL 18:40, 23 February 2011 (EST)


I'm not quite sure this fits. While "passed" or "passed on" is certainly a euphemism for "dead," surely it carries with it the connotation of passing on to God's judgment? It seems to me like, if anything, "dead" is the more atheist-friendly term, since they're fond of claiming that once you're dead, you're dead. --Benp 22:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)

You seem to be correct, perish->dead maybe? Do what you feel is right.--Jpatt 22:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Use of Christian Language in non-Religious Context

Based on the introduction to this page, the list is supposed to contain Christian expressions that have been replaced by secular expressions. But some examples are Christian expressions that are being used in non-Religious context. (Examples on this page include "Saintly"/"Well-behaved" and "Angelic"/"Pretty." Other examples I thought of are "Oh my God!" instead of "Oh no!" and calling something "divine" instead of "delicious" or "in excellent taste.") Maybe this page can have one list of Christian expressions that are being replaced with different secular terms, and one list that contains Christian expressions that have been inappropriately adopted by the secular crowd for non-religious use. Does this make sense? Or do you think this all belongs in the same list? --Toadaron 12:25, 24 February 2011 (EST)

Gesundheit means "God Bless you!" in German

Gesundheit litterally translates to "God Bless you!" in German. I don't think there is any malice or Secularized Language in this phrase. I think it was just a custom started by German-American Immigrants that caught on. As a descendant of German-American immigrants I feel obliged to point this out. Thank you, --Davidkon 14:30, 24 February 2011 (EST)

As a speaker of German, I can tell you that Gesundheit means "Health". Gott segne dich! EricAlstrom 15:03, 24 February 2011 (EST)
Sorry to disagree with you, Davidkon, but "geshundheit" means "good health" as this entry[6] states. The German word for God is "Gott", and this word is not part of gesundheit. Karajou 15:07, 24 February 2011 (EST)


I made a start at the categories Ed suggested, and organized the terms alphabetically within each category. I did remove the example of "Jesus!" to "Gee whiz!", as I really think that's primarily a case of people trying not to use the Lord's name in a profane fashion. --Benp 13:10, 26 February 2011 (EST)

Your improvements are superb. But I didn't know that "Gee whiz" was a secularization of "Jesus"! I'd be inclined to leave that in for informative purposes, even though you're reason for deleting it is probably. Perhaps with a footnote?--Andy Schlafly 13:19, 26 February 2011 (EST)

I can certainly see your point as far as the informative value, and this isn't, after all, just supposed to be an article about language that was secularized for malicious reasons. It seems like we really do need a section exploring possible reasons for the secularization of language, and the ways in which even benign motives can contribute to the trend. --Benp 15:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)
Hmm...that being the case, should similar euphemistic alterations like "Jeepers Creepers" be added in, too? --Benp 15:23, 26 February 2011 (EST)
You win. Let's keep that junk out.  :-) --Andy Schlafly 15:45, 26 February 2011 (EST)


Hello, I was wondering wondering what the rational of "State -> Government", along with "Govern -> Rule". I don't particularly see how either is Christian or secular, and beyond that, it seems like these to contradict each other. Just wanting to hear some thoughts. EricAlstrom 18:52, 26 February 2011 (EST)

Seems straightforward: the more atheistic one is, the more he views government as the church, and officials in government as rulers. In contrast, the term "state" includes the people (e.g., "State of Rhode Island"), and governing connotes an element of service rather than purely ruling.--Andy Schlafly 19:04, 26 February 2011 (EST)


I would like to point out that the English letter X looks exactly like the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of 'Christ' in Greek. That is the origin of 'Xmas' and it is not an attempt to take Christ out. I submit that 'Xmas' should be removed from this list. --Lordofthemarsh 11:51, 2 March 2011 (EST)

That's a slippery slope: referring the "X" to "Christ". Let's keep it in for now.
Eventually, we can expand this topic, branching out to all sorts of language differences between conservatives and liberals. The religious-secular division is just one such difference.
By the way, I'd prefer you to use your real name (unless Andy has given you specific permission to use a pseudonym). --Ed Poor Talk 14:50, 2 March 2011 (EST)
The transliteration of Christ in Greek is Χριστός, for what it is worth.
I thought the point of the article was how we all talk about the same things but that the sacredness has been removed by substituting a synonym to remove the holiness of the original words.
I suppose, conversely, one could make the point that LORD is a "secularized" version of the tetragrammaton. This was done for the reason that YHWH was too sacred to be uttered. DevonJ 17:37, 2 March 2011 (EST)

"Notes" section

I added a "notes" section for things myself and others in the Talk page have pointed out. Let me know what you think. -danq 23:50, 2 March 2011 (EST)

Shrove Tuesday/Mardi Gras

"Mardi Gras" is the only way to say "Shrove Tuesday" in French. Shrove Tuesday is a specific English tradition of a confessional before Lent. In French culture, the last day before Lent is Mardi Gras, never a French translation of "Shrove Tuesday". The Vatican liturgical calendar doesn't even include the day before Ash Wednesday. [7] DouglasL 15:04, 9 March 2011 (EST)

Fighting Secularized Language

Would it be appropriate to comb through Conservapedia articles for instances of secularized language on this list, and change them to reflect the correct words? I haven't been active in a while, and I thought such a project might be a good re-introduction to the community. --WillS 19:43, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

That's a great idea!--Andy Schlafly 20:23, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
Thanks! I'm on it. One question; is there any way to edit page titles? For example, the 'birth control' pill should really be called the 'abortion' pill; I think that's both fighting secular language and much more accurate, anyways (not that there's any chance of secular thought being mistaken as logical!).--WillS 22:58, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
If doing so would require more user rights than I have, I could also compile a list for a moderator to look at when they're not busy. I'm running into quite a few; 'Halloween' should be renamed 'Hallowed Eve,' for example.--WillS 23:10, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
Will I'm reverting you on quite a few pages - I think you're going too far in a lot of cases, for example, in an article called "Atheist vs. Secular" you replaced "secular" with "pagan" (see here). I also particularly disagree with your edits here, here, here ... well pretty much of all of them. I'm likewise going to accuse you of parody. If Andy disagrees with my reverts I will obviously cease, but until he approves your edits I plan on reverting you on-sight.
Also you'll notice that this entry makes very clear that birth control is not always used to mean "abortion" - it's only noting that abortionist might use the phrase birth control so that they don't have to say "abortion" - so your changes there are also disingenuous.
Furthermore, and lastly, the notion that only "pagan liberals" use the secularized version of these words is laughable. Through secularization the words have entered into (indeed, sometimes replacing the old words) modern vernacular. If you're to suggest that everyone who uses the term "Easter" is a pagan liberal (as you did here) - then you're suggesting the majority of the United States is pagan liberals, which is simply not the case at all. --IDuan 23:59, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
User is blocked. --Ed Poor Talk 00:44, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Removing "Paddy's Day"

As Aschlafly said, "atheists have been unable to secularize the name of the holiday by omitting 'Saint'." Martyp 10:01, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

The difference between St. Patrick's Day and Valentine's Day is that the former is to honor a saint (and patriot), while the latter about exchanging romantic cards and is no longer related in the public mind with the original Saint Valentine.
I don't expect the secularists to achieve the same success with Christmas. --Ed Poor Talk 01:13, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Christmas, and Islamic terorism

I may be totally off base here, but isn't "Christmas" technically an example of secularized language, as it is an abbreviation of "Christ's Mass"? It looks like an attempt to remove the "mass" aspect of Christmas. DennyW66 01:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Also, I'm not sure that Islamic terrorism (or any terrorism, for that matter) and man-made disasters can be automatically conflated while excluding other terrorism. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing, an example of domestic (and not Islamic) terrorism, certainly wouldn't fall under the commonly accepted definition of "man made disaster". While it is certainly a disaster, made by man (and not God), then wouldn't all terrorism necessarily fall under this definition? DennyW66 13:07, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Patriot --> Extremist

Given that the first use of the word dates to 1577 and speaks more to love of country than to love of God, isn't it already a "secularized" word to begin with? Martyp 17:28, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

I didn't think about it like that. What do you think God & Country --> Extremist would do better?--Jpatt 17:49, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
I'm trying to parse out what you're thinking here: "One example would be West Palm Beach mayor Lois Frankel (D) is running against Allen West in 2012. His campaign is to label West as an extremist. Harry Reid is known to call patriots extremists." Okay, Frankel is calling West an extremist. Not knowing much about West, I have no real informed opinion on the matter, but that's entirely in the realm of the secular (ie, everyday party politics) to begin with. Where is the sacred/religious/holy aspect of West's or Frankel's position that is being elided with a secularizing discourse? And then you bring in Reid, and his use of the term "extremist" as a way to talk about his political opponents; again, this is business as usual for politicians, and I don't see any secularizing agenda here. The point of "secularizing language" is just that -- to secularize, ie, to draw our attention away from, or obscure, those elements of our history/experience/culture which speak to the domain of the sacred. Party politics is already secular by nature. Martyp 18:05, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
West's points are a respect for God, love for the Constitution, America is exceptional, family is important, discipline and honor. The people attacking him are the extremists. They are the ones calling themselves righteous by calling him extremist. They support the control of people, not freedom. They support breaking the Constitution to implement their radical agenda. They don't respect God by pushing moral depravity and deaths of children in the womb. I understand that politics is secularized already, maybe a bad example. However, you can remove the politics and still find patriot --> extremist. The DHS targeting the people who loves this country as extremist. They [say] they don't look at it from a partisan point of view, only by threat level. So they themselves have removed politics from their decision and decided patriots are a threat aka extremist. I'd like to hear from others first before deciding to remove. --Jpatt 18:19, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
By trying to frame "patriotism" as something that is by nature sacred, it becomes impossible to conceive of a love of country that isn't rooted in love of God. The two aren't mutually exclusive--try telling as much to the 25 million Soviets, at least a portion of whom were doctrinaire communists, who died in the Great Patriotic War. Martyp 18:33, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Founders/Extremists--> Is that even a thing?

Are there seriously people out there who aren't so fringe as to be completely unremarkable that are trying in a concerted manner to paint the Founding Fathers as a group of extremists? And how exactly would that be "secularizing language" ie trying to obscure a fundamentally religious phenomenon by using discourse as a means by which to hide the religious roots/origins/nature of a term? Martyp 19:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

But the founders were extremists!
The group of people we call the founding fathers could have worked many other ways to right the wrongs they saw perpetrated against English citizens in America, yet they choose complete and utter dissolution of the bonds to the Mother country, revolution. (If revolution isn't extreme then perhaps we need a new conservative word?) DevonJ 22:50, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

I'm not sure you know what that word means.

"Secularizing" means to remove the religious elements from something, and thus to render it secular, such as replacing "Merry Christmas" (a religious concept) with "Happy Holidays" (a secular one). Going from "constitutionalist" to "birther" is not about secularizing a term and robbing it of its religious meanings. It's about using a snarl word for somebody's political point of view. LloydR 13:12, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Why don't you educate all to what that word means exactly marty? Strictly political? It is in fact a God given right to freedom and liberty. It has honor, it was deemed pure. There is a sacredness nature to Constitutionalist. To call someone a birther is to say fringe and extreme, to marginalize demands laid forth by the Constitution. In other words to secularize. --Jpatt 14:33, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Should we add a historical part about the efforts of the Third Reich in secularizing/changing German language?

I'm pretty sure, that the Nazis tried to reform the German languages vocabulary quite extensively. That might be interesting for this article. A book that discusses this phenomenon is here[8]. An article (in German) about the subject would be here [9].
A reference to George Orwells 1984 might also be interesting since the book shows among other things, how a totalitarian governement will try to influence and control the language of its citizens.
Since this would be a rather polarising edit I would like to have the OK of an admin. À Dieu--VPropp 18:46, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for your interesting suggestion. Please add some historical examples to the entry. I'll add a new section to get it started.--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the new section. I added Nazi-Germany and George Orwell. It would be wonderful if someone could write something about the secularization of language in the Eastern Block, DDR and USSSR. I know there were efforts, but I don't know enough about them to add them. À Dieu--VPropp 10:52, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for your fascinating addition about this! Many will now learn from your insights.--Andy Schlafly 11:13, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

page cleanup necessary

User Adamdiscordia appears to have multiple edits to this entry and it needs to be cleaned up. I don't have much interest in this article so I will let more active editors for this page do the clean up. I would also review the work of other new editors as well. conservative 01:06, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

This article contradicts its own terminology. "Secular" is said to be the secularized version of, among others, "godless" and "pagan". Shouldn't it be changed? DynaboyJ 23:49, 15 December 2011 (EST)

One Nation Under God

I think that particular phrase should be removed from the list of secularized language. In fact, it should be listed as an example of religious language enhancing secular language. The original expression did not include "under God" but was added to expressly reflect this nation's belief in God as opposed to atheistic communism. I think the part about atheists trying to undo it should stay. Thoughts? Tordenvaer 14:32, 9 February 2012 (EDT)

Some of this is ridiculous.

For example, the "flood waters/flooding/flood".

How is that secular language.

And quite honestly, have you ever thought that some of these were just because they were mouthfuls? Language evolves over time. Please, guys, you're making a mountain out of a molehill-- just like the liberal media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaitlynnm (talk)

Utter nonsense

  • How is contracting Christ's Mass to Christmas secularized?
  • The X in Xmas is actually a Greek letter Chi for CHrist
  • Civil calendar just refers to that used by the government
  • How is saying the Fourth of July secularized? I suppose if something happened on the day I must say Independence Day because July 4 is secular
  • When was Easter ever called Resurrection Sunday?
  • Who even says "Praise be!"
  • Afterlife is not secular language. Any set of beliefs includes something that happens after life == afterlife
Please sign your posts. --DamianJohn 00:58, 11 March 2013 (EDT)
I've heard that some Evangelicals are using "Resurrection Sunday". Also, while "Chi" in Xmas might have originally been true, it has been used in an anti-religious manner for a long time now. danq 17:37, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
Should also mention, atheists and anti-Christians use "Xian" and "Xtian" now too. danq 16:10, 20 May 2013 (EDT)

Gee Whiz

Whilst true this is used instead of Jesus, I disagree it is secular. It is much like the phrase "Cor blimey" (God blind me), originally used to curse without using God's name in vain.--Patmac 15:46, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

Should this be included?

Would it be a good idea to add 'Oh my gosh' as an example of secularized language? Although it is a replacement for 'oh my G*d', which violates the fourth commandment, it still seems like an attempt to take God's name out of something, which by definition, is secularized language. -Mark Adams(Discuss with me) 09:26, 7 January 2021 (EST)