Re: Politics and morality

"Ron Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Secular refers to the style of communication, not an ideology. People of
different religions need to communicate with each other and all that I am
advocating is that they do so in a secular manner. When the religious use
the word "sacred" they mean different things depending on their religion and
that is the very reason it isn't a suitable word for establishing
communication. <

We use the word "sacred" in sentences like "Buddhists hold the word of
Guatama sacred" and also "patriots hold the national flag sacred". Neither
use implies a belief in the supernatural, but rather a recognition of a
sense of reverence or respect.

> The whole idea is to avoid using a vague and ambiguous vocabulary. OK,
that's hard to do using a human language. <

There is a common meaning to the term "sacred" which is recognized by most
people in every day speech. I don't think we should be afraid of words just
because they are also used by fundamentalist preachers.

> This newsgroup has trouble when it comes to concepts like morality and
evil precisely because of their religious connotations. <

But running away from "morality" creates a serious problem for humanists and
atheists in general. We are often accused of being "amoral" or even worse,
"immoral". Humanism is not an escape from morality. Humanism embraces
significant moral principles. I don't think there is any substitute for the
word "morality". The word "ethics" refers to a set of rules, but it does not
address the intent of the rules. Rules may be used to inflict harm or to
achieve good. Morality is the intent to achieve good, for others as well as
for ourselves.