SkipCaptcha
110
edits
Changes
Talk:Secularized Language (view source)
Revision as of 14:26, January 7, 2021
, 14:26, January 7, 2021→Should this be included?: new section
:::::::::::::: 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.[[User:JustinU|JustinU]] 00:44, 23 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.[[User:JustinU|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. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:57, 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. [[User:Karajou|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.[http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/saints.htm] The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the <big>'''saints'''</big> 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.[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html] Therefore, George Washington was a saint. Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:33, 23 February 2011 (EST)
:::The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia correctly declares and supports the doctrine that every true Christian believer is a saint.[http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/saints.htm] The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the <big>'''saints'''</big> 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.[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html] Therefore, George Washington was a saint. Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:33, 23 February 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!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 16:42, 2 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!--[[User:IScott|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 <i>same</i> 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 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkJMeSrTSg "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? -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 20:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
== Perversion diversity ==
== Perversion diversity ==
::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!).--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 22:58, 16 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!).--[[User:WillS|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.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 23:10, 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.--[[User:WillS|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 [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheist_vs_Secular&diff=857269&oldid=854632 here]). I also particularly disagree with your edits [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina&curid=4875&diff=857294&oldid=832249 here], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Falsifiable&diff=857293&oldid=849936 here], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alcoholics_Anonymous&curid=29600&diff=857297&oldid=685921 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 ([http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection_Sunday&action=historysubmit&diff=857285&oldid=844239 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'''. --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:59, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::User is blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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'." [[User:Martyp|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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:DennyW66|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? [[User:DennyW66|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? [[User:Martyp|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?--[[User:Jpatt|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. [[User:Martyp|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. --[[User:Jpatt|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. [[User:Martyp|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? [[User:Martyp|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?) [[User:DevonJ|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. [[User:LloydR|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 sacred''ness'' 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. --[[User:Jpatt|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[http://www.amazon.com/Language-Third-Reich-Imperii-Continuum/dp/0826491308/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top]. An article (in German) about the subject would be here [http://www.lingua.amu.edu.pl/Lingua_13/MAKOWSKI.pdf].<br />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.<br />Since this would be a rather polarising edit I would like to have the OK of an admin. À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 10:52, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your fascinating addition about this! Many will now learn from your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:Conservative|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? [[User:DynaboyJ|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? [[User:Tordenvaer|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. {{unsigned|Kaitlynnm}}
== 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. --[[User:DamianJohn|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. [[User:Danq|danq]] 17:37, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
::Should also mention, atheists and anti-Christians use "Xian" and "Xtian" now too. [[User:Danq|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.--[[User:Patmac|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. -[[User:Mark Adams|Mark Adams]][[User Talk:MAdams|(Discuss with me) ]] 09:26, 7 January 2021 (EST)