What secularism is

The second ends up being suppression, just using a different route. It uses the curb and inhibit method.

But they are <whisper it> irrelevant. <shakes head in despair>

I have made my own points. I dont think that they need repitition.

Soontobe
This is getting silly!
The accepted view by most of the posters is that there is a difference between states that suppress religions, and those that separate the state and religion!
In the second, the state is not influenced by any religious people or beliefs!

Everyone can read.

You can give all the links you like but can you explain in what way they fundamentally differ from each other?

www.thefreedictionary.com/suppression

dictionary.reference.com/browse/suppress

Actually, I realise that I can go on and on with links.

a secular state is NOT one which suppresses religion

and you Soutra are using the exact same point, so off to link I will go.

I thought a lot of posters dont like links, so I didnt put any.
Also, I thought a lot of posters like to google themselves, so again I didnt put links.

But if you insist!

Secularism is not, repeat not, in favour of suppressing religion

This is rather a central point to thatbags, it would seem, which is why I am addressing it.

There may be several parts to the definition of "to suppress" but they are all essentially the same- to curb, inhibit , put down by force, or prevent the dissemination of (information) so I wonder which definition you are referring to soontobe. And isn't this all a red herring anyway as a secular state is NOT one which suppresses religion so why raise an "Aunt Sally" just to shoot it down?
One of the first things in a discussion/ argument is to "define your terms" so it helps when both parties are talking about the same thing .

I was asking thatbags which definition of the word she was using. Not absent. Unless you are both the same poster?

There are a variety of different definitions absent.

I was replying about the meaning of a word about which I am fairly confident that I am correct. That was what you were querying but if you don't trust me, try a dictionary.

I could post some links of the many definitions of the word suppress.

Although you may be right about thatbags, I do not know her well enough to be able to say that myself.
And you cannot possibly answer on behalf of everyone that is in favour of secularism. Can you?

soontobe It must be obvious that bags is using the word suppression in its commonest and clearest way. What she is saying is that states, such as the Soviet Union, which actively prevent the practice of religion and may even persecute believers with the intention of ending religious belief by force, are not secular in the way described in the OP, but are anti-religious. China's suppression of Buddhism in Tibet is another example.

Not sure if you are just talking about me thatbags?

Which definition of the word suppression are you using?

Depends on which definition of suppression you use.

Exactly bags

So, a state that suppresses religion(s) should properly be called religion-suppressing, or even anti-religion. Secularism is not, repeat not, in favour of suppressing religion. Anyone who persists in believing so is just being obtuse and stubborn and, I suspect, can't have read the article in the OP, or, if they have, they've misunderstood it.

Which is sad.

I tend to agree with feetle's point. States that actively suppress religion are not secular in the sense explained in the OP article, which is the proper and full sense. Using secular to mean simply not religious is not strictly correct and I think using it thus it causes a lot of confusion.

Secularism as described by the NSS (see OP article) has no wish to suppress religion. I keep saying this but it does not seem to be taken on board. Beats me why not. Secularism as described by the NSS supports everyone's freedom to believe or not believe, with none having any privileges and none being suppressed.

.
Oops should have also have said to all others !!

Thanks Nonu. And the same to you, and everyone else on here.

Soontobe and a healthy and prosperous 2015 to you.

That's a cop-out, feetle. Although the ideologies of totalitarian regimes are often compared to religions and share some chacteristics, they are not faiths. And they are secular to the extent that they suppress religion. Perhaps the lack of personal animosity has to do with the spirit of Christmas. Love and peace and so on!