@Likewise@bookstodon
I used to collect Folio Society editions of books cause they were so pretty. Then I filled all my shelves and moved on to easier to store collecting.
@knoawyls@bookstodon
Whoof. I'd tend to think this idea of a paradox of secularism is more a paradox of our language than specific to whatever secularism is, given I've never heard the term till right now.
Like they said in the article, there's an equal paradox about what constitutes a member of any religion, or what a gender is... insofar as who gets to define the identity of a potential member.
There's all the philosophy built up in even defining a religion, but I find that the more encompassing a definition you use, the less meaningful it actually is. Does it help to think of about any group that may have community and rituals as a religion? What about the company I work for? The knitting group? This bookstodon group?
As soon as you define the terms more narrowly, a lot of the paradox disappears I think.
So, to me, the article is a slightly offensive language game that basically tries to say "you can't be non-religious".