Words are important and the way we use them, even more so. Everybody knows the difference between religious and secular. Heck, I went to plenty of programs on campus at the various Adventist institutions I attended that featured “sacred” music during the Sabbath hours and “secular” music just moments after the sun went down. It’s also clear to just about everybody when it comes to religious education (church schools) vs. secular education (public schools), religious charities (run as ministries) vs. secular charities (just exist to help people), etc.

As the movement comprised of those who call themselves atheists, agnostics, skeptics, humanists, brights, freethinkers, or what ever other way they like to say that they don’t believe in gods continues to coalesce, as can be seen with the Reason Rally and the growing number of local Coalitions of Reason, the word people seem to be settling on is secular. In several ways this makes sense. Our ultimate goal is a strengthening of the wall between church and state and full equality in society and government. We’ll know where there when there’s an open atheist on the Supreme Court and numerous open atheists serving in congress and as state governors.  Our goal is protecting and strengthening the secular nature of our government.

However, I’m no so sure that secular should be used to define people. Sure, in its common usage religious and secular are effectively opposites, but they aren’t really. Secular is neutral, neither for nor against religion and I think it needs to stay that way. If we make secular seem synonymous with atheist, then we run the risk of people viewing secular as anti-religious, something that would produce very bad PR, alienate the stupid masses, and play right into the hands of the “Moral Majority.”

I’m not questioning whether or not the use of the word secular is technically correct, I’m questioning whether or not it’s politically expedient. Why not keep the “secular movement” as being for everybody who supports secular government being involved. While the non-religious are a large portion of this group, the majority would be religious people. We agree with a lot of religious believers on church state separation, especially other religious minorities, so now that we can all work together, let’s reach across the aisle and work with our allies. A secular movement that represents 10 or 15% of the population could be a force to be reckoned with, but imagine the power of a secular movement that represents 50 or 60%.

As far as what we call ourselves, how about freethought community/movement or atheist community/movement? Even if we can’t agree on it now, give it a decade or two and enough of the old guard humanists that are afraid of the “a” word will have either died or slipped in dementia that we can do it then.