Talk:Secularized Language

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)

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)

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)