The principles of secularism
DEFINITION — From the the book
"The adoption of the term Secularism is justified by its including a large number of persons who are not Atheists, and uniting them for action which has Secularism for its object, and not Atheism."
— Harriet Martineau, 1853
✍️ Core Definition
Secularism = a system of thought and action focused on this world, human well‑being, shared practical life — not on religious belief or disbelief.
WHY "SECULARISM"? — The 3 Big Reasons
Reason 1: Inclusion & Unity
- Old labels (Atheist, Infidel) exclude everyone who is religious
- "Secularism" says: "You can be Christian, Jewish, or Atheist — if you care about justice, education, and improving life here together, you’re welcome."
- Example: A secular public school — religious and non‑religious families both support it. They don’t discuss religion in class; they focus on learning, skills, citizenship = secular action.
Reason 2: Remove Prejudice & Unfair Labels
- Terms like "Infidel" or "Atheist" were invented by opponents to make people sound dangerous or immoral
- The book compares keeping those names to "a merchant vessel carrying a pirate flag" — you give your enemies the power to paint you as the villain
- "Secularism" is a neutral, respected word — already in dictionaries, used by everyone, hard to twist into an insult
- Example: If you say "I advocate for secular hospitals," people hear "fair, inclusive healthcare." If you say "I’m an Infidel," people hear an old insult — they stop listening before you explain.
Reason 3: Clear, Shared Purpose
- Freethinking = personal inquiry and truth‑seeking (internal, individual)
- Secularism = collective action for this‑worldly good (public, practical)
- Example:
- Freethinking: "I study religion and decide my own beliefs"
- Secularism: "We set up schools, hospitals, laws that treat everyone equally — no matter what anyone believes"
In a passage of characteristic sagacity, Dr J. H. Newman has depicted the partisan aimlessness more descriptive of the period when this little book first appeared, sixteen years ago, than it is now. But it will be long before its relevance and instruction have passed away. I, therefore, take the liberty of still quoting his words:
When persons for the first time look upon the world of politics or religion, all that they find there meet their mind’s eye, as a landscape addresses itself for the first time to a person who has just gained his bodily sight.
One thing is as far off as another; there is no perspective. The connection of fact with fact, truth with truth, the bearing of fact upon truth, and truth upon fact, what leads to what, what are points primary and what secondary, all this they have yet to learn.
It is all a new science to them, and they do not even know their ignorance of it. Moreover, the world of today has no connection in their minds with the world of yesterday; time is not a stream, but stands before them round and full, like the moon.
They do not know what happened ten years ago, much less the annals of a century: the past does not live to them in the present; they do not understand the worth of contested points; names have no associations for them, and persons kindle no recollections.
They hear of men, and things, and projects, and struggles, and principles, but everything comes and goes like the wind; nothing makes an impression, nothing penetrates, nothing has its place in their minds. They locate nothing: they have no system. They hear and they forget, or they just recollect what they have once heard, but they cannot tell where. Thus they have no consistency in their arguments: that is, they argue one way today, and not exactly the other way tomorrow, but indirectly the other way at random.
Their lines of argument diverge; nothing comes to a point; there is no one centre in which their mind sits, on which their judgment of men and things proceeds. This is the state of many men all through life; and the miserable politicians or Churchmen they make, unless by good luck they are in safe hands, and ruled by others, or are pledged to a course. Else they are at the mercy of the wind and weaves; and without being Radical, Whig, Tory, or Conservative, High Church or Low Church, they do Whig acts, Tory acts, Catholic acts, and Heretical acts, as the fit, takes them, or as events or parties drive them.
Contents:
I. — Introductory.
II. — The Term Secularism.
III. — Principles of Secularism Defined.
IV. — Laws of Secular Controversy.
V. — Maxims of Association.
VI. — The Secular Guild.
VII. — Organization Indicated.
VIII. — The Place of Secularism.
IX. — Characteristics of Secularism.
Download 2 MB