nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Andy's more correct than even I thought.
:::: 5 times a day, actually. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 14:39, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: 5 times a day, actually. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 14:39, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]
Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]
Although I essentially side with Andy on this issue, I was going to say that I don't agree with him on the definition of "secular". However, in checking my facts, it appears that Andy is closer to the truth that anyone here has given him credit for, even if the particular way he expressed it is not exactly right.
* [http://www.onelook.com/?w=secular&ls=a OneLook] gives the meaning as "concerning those not members of the clergy", although I don't know which dictionary it got that from.
* [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secular Merriam-Webster] gives one of the definitions as "not ecclesiastical or clerical", and gives ''secular courts'' as an example.
* The [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular Online Etymology Dictionary] says that the word started off (in 1290) as meaning '"living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state"'.
It appears that the word, which I'd say started in a society that was Christian, did not originally mean "without religion", but "not part of the religious establishment". The ''secular courts'' example above illustrates this. A ''secular court'' was distinct from a ''church court''. It had to do with which authority (church or state) controlled it; it was not to do with whether or not religion was involved. Religion (i.e. Christianity) was involved regardless. That is, the state, although distinct from the church still recognised the church as a co-equal authority.
In modern times, it has come to mean "without religion" as one of its most-commonly-used meanings (particularly by atheists and the like), but this appears to not be an original meaning, and so Andy is justified in making the comment that he does.
Furthermore, and this is where I agreed with him anyway, any state that ''excludes'' religion is not religiously neutral, but is taking sides, with the atheists. I don't believe that Andy's gripe is that schools don't ''have to'' have prayer, but that they are ''not allowed to'' have prayer (and we're not talking about students silently or privately praying). If the state ''allowed'', but didn't ''enforce'' school prayer, they would be religiously neutral. But if they ''ban'' it, they are no longer being religiously neutral.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)