Difference between revisions of "Talk:Secularized Language"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Washington's Birthday/President's Day: An atheistic bias pushes language from the Christian recognition to the more atheistic substitute.)
(14 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
:::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.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:34, 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.  --[[User:Benp|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. [[User:Martyp|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 +
 +
::What kind of a saint was George Washington? --[[User:JohannesZ|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]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 +
 +
::::Canonized in 1920, right? When did the Church recognize Washington as a saint? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:17, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 +
 +
::::@Andy: Aye. She still needed miracles credited to her. [http://www.stjoan-center.com/novelapp/joaap04.html] --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 16:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 +
 +
:::::I don't think all Christian churches have the same rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:23, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 +
::::::Undoubtedly. So which churches DO recognize Washington as a saint or other type of sacred being? [[User:Martyp|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?--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:Martyp|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 22 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[http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/liturgico_en/easter.html] and [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_liturgy_calendar_en.html#APRIL_2011]. 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.
 +
 +
[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 14:18, 22 February 2011 (EST)
 +
 +
:Pagan definition: one who has little or no religion. Secular definition: not overtly or specifically religious. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Revision as of 18:15, 22 February 2011

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)

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[2] and [3]. 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)