Sacredness

[Samuel]

The hope that despite our differences, if we keep talking, we'll find common ground, and greater understanding

[Shaker]

I think what we've witnessed here is an example of the gap between language and ideas / feelings. And that gap isn't the same for all people.

Shaker, Rhiannon and I all feel some need to reach for the term sacred, Floo and Nearly Sane do not. I don't think that means anyone feels certain things are more or less important if particular words are used instead of others, only that, as individuals, we feel the need to express our relationship with the world using different terms.

Another issue that springs to mind is that modern non-religious people generally don't have a vocabulary to describe these things. The religious of all faiths always do; it's usually very old and comes as standard - ready made and off the peg, so to speak. Non-religious people don't have that and that's regrettable. Creating new words from scratch doesn't often work - Coleridge tried that with esemplastic and nobody knows that nowadays - which is why, so often, words have to be borrowed from religious traditions and translated, which (a) can invite misunderstanding and (b) trigger the proprietorial reflex. But there's no alternative.

[SusanDoris]

Words such as 'sacred' and 'holy'  - and come to think of it the latter is being used less and less I think - particularly the former are likely to be around for a long time to come, but I am optimistic that their link to religious beliefs will almost disappear in the not too distant future.

I'm surprised you detest religion that much,  that you can't even seem to bear the connection with religion, of certain phrases and words.

Was it such a terrible influence on your life?

You come across as very negative, not even Floo comes across that negative about it.

I can safely say that I do not, and would go so far as to say I never have, detested or hated anything. I see and accept things as they are. Some parts of my life have been very difficult to cope with, but none has left me an old misery-guts. That's wasted emotion every time.
As for detesting religion, well, for a start, it is an entirely human idea, and it was a part of my early life with choir singing, acting, meeting friends ... ... but finally, realising that of course there wasnt, let alone ever had been, any God, ever, it was time to move away and do the best I could to help all those who also realise this.
 One of the things people say about me is that I'm always so positive about things.

[Nearly Sane]

If all sacred means is very important to someone, then I suggest we are effectively draining it of any real meaning. My local us very important to me but I would never regard it as sacred. That in any secular sense we seem to be either unable to define it, or to define it so wide as to be meaningless illustrates the problem for me.

No, my car is important, it isn't sacred.

'I carry the thought of you so gently in my two hands'. That's the best way I can think to describe it, whether in relation to a child or a value or a forest.

I was merely picking up on Rose's post where she suggested that anything very important was sacred. I agree that you are not using it in that sense.

[Rhiannon]

If all sacred means is very important to someone, then I suggest we are effectively draining it of any real meaning. My local us very important to me but I would never regard it as sacred. That in any secular sense we seem to be either unable to define it, or to define it so wide as to be meaningless illustrates the problem for me.

No, my car is important, it isn't sacred.

'I carry the thought of you so gently in my two hands'. That's the best way I can think to describe it, whether in relation to a child or a value or a forest.

I was merely picking up on Rose's post where she suggested that anything very important was sacred. I agree that you are not using it in that sense.

Rose also said that anything sacred needs to be 'handled with care', which is what prompted me to quote as I did.

[Nearly Sane]

For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?

[Rhiannon]

I personally don't link a need for reverence with sacredness. Actually reverence worries me, because it is largely uncritical.

[floo]

I personally don't link a need for reverence with sacredness. Actually reverence worries me, because it is largely uncritical.

I don't think reverence is a good attribute.

[ProfessorDavey]

For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?

I been thinking about this and I don't think that I personally use 'sacred' in a meaningful sense at all. Sure I may flippantly use the term 'is nothing sacred' and erroneously describe my Friday night as 'sacred' - but those are merely turns of phrase, not really meaning it.

So to my secular view what would something sacred be. Well I guess firstly it needs to be something that is exceptionally important, secondly something that is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be treated with great care to protect and nurture it. So perhaps some very special relationships fall into that category, but those are personal and 'internal' (well between two people, whereas sacred tends to be used in an externalised manner - telling the world about something that is sacred.

And the discussion on reverence and lack of criticism really hit a cord with me. To my mind the current use of sacred is inextricably linked with a view that the sacred thing, whatever that may be, must be revered and is beyond criticism or challenge. And I just don't like that - everything must be open to challenge.

And this isn't merely in the religious world. It isn't uncommon for people to describe the NHS as sacred, really meaning beyond challenge on fundamental principles. Now I am a huge supporter of the NHS and agree wholeheartedly with its fundamental principles, but that doesn't mean it should be beyond challenge, and I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about describing it as sacred.

[floo]

Using the word 'sacred' in the secular sense has no more credence than using the term 'holier than thou' to describe someone who is very up themselves, imo.

[Rhiannon]

For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?

I been thinking about this and I don't think that I personally use 'sacred' in a meaningful sense at all. Sure I may flippantly use the term 'is nothing sacred' and erroneously describe my Friday night as 'sacred' - but those are merely turns of phrase, not really meaning it.

So to my secular view what would something sacred be. Well I guess firstly it needs to be something that is exceptionally important, secondly something that is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be treated with great care to protect and nurture it. So perhaps some very special relationships fall into that category, but those are personal and 'internal' (well between two people, whereas sacred tends to be used in an externalised manner - telling the world about something that is sacred.

And the discussion on reverence and lack of criticism really hit a cord with me. To my mind the current use of sacred is inextricably linked with a view that the sacred thing, whatever that may be, must be revered and is beyond criticism or challenge. And I just don't like that - everything must be open to challenge.

And this isn't merely in the religious world. It isn't uncommon for people to describe the NHS as sacred, really meaning beyond challenge on fundamental principles. Now I am a huge supporter of the NHS and agree wholeheartedly with its fundamental principles, but that doesn't mean it should be beyond challenge, and I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about describing it as sacred.

Yes, which is why I don't like the idea of reverence as I said. For me it is more about approaching things with sensitivity.

[Samuel]

For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?

I been thinking about this and I don't think that I personally use 'sacred' in a meaningful sense at all. Sure I may flippantly use the term 'is nothing sacred' and erroneously describe my Friday night as 'sacred' - but those are merely turns of phrase, not really meaning it.

So to my secular view what would something sacred be. Well I guess firstly it needs to be something that is exceptionally important, secondly something that is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be treated with great care to protect and nurture it. So perhaps some very special relationships fall into that category, but those are personal and 'internal' (well between two people, whereas sacred tends to be used in an externalised manner - telling the world about something that is sacred.

And the discussion on reverence and lack of criticism really hit a cord with me. To my mind the current use of sacred is inextricably linked with a view that the sacred thing, whatever that may be, must be revered and is beyond criticism or challenge. And I just don't like that - everything must be open to challenge.

And this isn't merely in the religious world. It isn't uncommon for people to describe the NHS as sacred, really meaning beyond challenge on fundamental principles. Now I am a huge supporter of the NHS and agree wholeheartedly with its fundamental principles, but that doesn't mean it should be beyond challenge, and I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about describing it as sacred.

I think that's a good point but perhaps that feeling of innapropriateness arrives because the NHS, no matter how good it's principles, is still an institution with embedded hierarchy and power. Describing it as sacred may imply that the power structure there should not be challenged, which of course is totally objectionable.

So perhaps the va,use of the word sacred in a secular sense is when it is applied to the powerless and vulnerable, like Rhiannon's tree.

[ProfessorDavey]

For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?

I been thinking about this and I don't think that I personally use 'sacred' in a meaningful sense at all. Sure I may flippantly use the term 'is nothing sacred' and erroneously describe my Friday night as 'sacred' - but those are merely turns of phrase, not really meaning it.

So to my secular view what would something sacred be. Well I guess firstly it needs to be something that is exceptionally important, secondly something that is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be treated with great care to protect and nurture it. So perhaps some very special relationships fall into that category, but those are personal and 'internal' (well between two people, whereas sacred tends to be used in an externalised manner - telling the world about something that is sacred.

And the discussion on reverence and lack of criticism really hit a cord with me. To my mind the current use of sacred is inextricably linked with a view that the sacred thing, whatever that may be, must be revered and is beyond criticism or challenge. And I just don't like that - everything must be open to challenge.

And this isn't merely in the religious world. It isn't uncommon for people to describe the NHS as sacred, really meaning beyond challenge on fundamental principles. Now I am a huge supporter of the NHS and agree wholeheartedly with its fundamental principles, but that doesn't mean it should be beyond challenge, and I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about describing it as sacred.

I think that's a good point but perhaps that feeling of innapropriateness arrives because the NHS, no matter how good it's principles, is still an institution with embedded hierarchy and power. Describing it as sacred may imply that the power structure there should not be challenged, which of course is totally objectionable.

So perhaps the va,use of the word sacred in a secular sense is when it is applied to the powerless and vulnerable, like Rhiannon's tree.

Just looking at the dictionary definitions three of the four examples used in the Oxford dictionary are clearly religious the fourth:

'regarded as too valuable to be interfered with; sacrosanct'

Is secular. But interestingly there is nothing really in that definition to suggest that it refers to powerless or vulnerable necessarily.

Perhaps by that definition our global climate is 'sacred' - i.e. too valuable to be interfered with. Not sure I feel comfortable with using the term still.

[Rhiannon]

No, I think as soon as we talk about things simply as weak or vulnerable, we make them passive victims. Our climate certainly won't be passive in response to our actions.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I think as soon as we talk about things simply as weak or vulnerable, we make them passive victims. Our climate certainly won't be passive in response to our actions.

Sorry I meant our climate perhaps fitted the secular definition:

'regarded as too valuable to be interfered with; sacrosanct'

Not that it was weak and vulnerable. Vulnerable perhaps but not weak.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I was taking what you said and referring back to what Sam had posted.

[Shaker]

Without trying to muddle two entirely different subjects on two different threads on two different sub-forums too much, last night's events in Paris made me reflect that the right of people to walk out and about safely in their place of residence, to pursue their leisure activities and enjoy themselves in peace and safety without the fear of random mayhem and myrder even having to cross their minds, is very close to the sort of sacred (supremely important, non-negotiable) value I've been trying (and I suspect failing) to express on this thread. Rhiannon's example likewise (one I could also have chosen).

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

A thread that gets the old grey cells turning.

The NHS, sacred, maybe not, but is the name Bevan sacred, or free at the point of access, is the concept sacred.

Just thinking out loud, good thread.

Gonnagle.

PS: this post might feel a bit disjointed, posting on my phone as EE can't get their bloody finger out.

I am not a number.

[ProfessorDavey]

The NHS, sacred, maybe not, but is the name Bevan sacred, or free at the point of access, is the concept sacred.

I wouldn't use the term to describe the NHS, or even the underpinning principle, and certainly not to describe Bevan.

That doesn't mean I don't passionately believe in the NHS and the underpinning principle - I do.

[Rhiannon]

Without trying to muddle two entirely different subjects on two different threads on two different sub-forums too much, last night's events in Paris made me reflect that the right of people to walk out and about safely in their place of residence, to pursue their leisure activities and enjoy themselves in peace and safety without the fear of random mayhem and myrder even having to cross their minds, is very close to the sort of sacred (supremely important, non-negotiable) value I've been trying (and I suspect failing) to express on this thread. Rhiannon's example likewise (one I could also have chosen).

Very much so.

And not just as a result of terrorism either.

[Samuel]

Without trying to muddle two entirely different subjects on two different threads on two different sub-forums too much, last night's events in Paris made me reflect that the right of people to walk out and about safely in their place of residence, to pursue their leisure activities and enjoy themselves in peace and safety without the fear of random mayhem and myrder even having to cross their minds, is very close to the sort of sacred (supremely important, non-negotiable) value I've been trying (and I suspect failing) to express on this thread. Rhiannon's example likewise (one I could also have chosen).

Completely agree.

Going back to what I said earlier I think the vulnerability of what you have just described is an essential part of its sacredness. I get the feeling that for something to be sacred it must be subject to potential change of a kind that could fundamentally change the thing, or destroy it altogether. So, it would make no sense at all to say that the speed of light is sacred.

As for powerlessness... I don't think I quite meant that. This thread really does demand careful thought about how you articulate things! I think it was more to do with sacred not being applicable to human institutions that involve sanctioned power or authority over other people. Not in a sinister way or anything... I just feel it matters somehow. That it is a factor.

p.s.Part of me wants to say "fuck this, it's too hard"

[Rhiannon]

Just re-reading this thread and bumping it so it doesn't disappear.

[Rhiannon]

Just posting here because I've enjoyed rereading this thread again, prompted by NS's mountain thread elsewhere.

It's easy to say that the rise of Trump shows how vital it is to have a sense of sacredness. Something about him and those like him makes the planet feel dirty.

[Bramble]

It's easy to say that the rise of Trump shows how vital it is to have a sense of sacredness. Something about him and those like him makes the planet feel dirty.

The problem comes when your idea of sacred threatens mine. My reaction to Trump is similar to yours but for an awful lot of people in the US Trump actually stands for something - for want of a better word - sacred. Plenty on the religious right certainly identify with his values. After all, what is sacredness if not that which aligns with ones deepest values and sense of identity? In which case, might one not define the sacred as that which represents an extension of me? Doesn't sound quite right like that though, does it!

Trump wants to remove protection from public monuments and national parks so that the land can be exploited for short term gains. Although this directly threatens what some feel is sacred, including many native Americans whose spirituality is bound up with the land, for others it is jobs now that matters - indeed, there remains a strong sense among many that the land is given to humans by God precisely so that it can be domesticated and exploited, as in the commandment in Genesis to subdue the earth.

Over here we have Brexit, which for some would seem to have reached an almost sacred importance - enough to warrant violence in the streets apparently. An issue that not so long ago was, so polls suggest, of only minor significance for most folk, is now the line that divides the nation in half. How did this happen? Facts seem to matter relatively little in the debate and changing circumstances are not significantly reflected in changing opinions, presumably because people have responded to the issue by making it a proxy for some kind of identity war which obviously predates the referendum but has found a new and vigorous expression in its outcome.

Looked at like this, perhaps sacredness is something of a double-edged sword. I certainly have some sympathy with the author of the old Zen poem who wrote, 'hold no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.' Trouble is I have strong opinions about Trump, and Brexit, and so much more. These opinions won't go away and, to be honest, they do feel very much like a dis-ease. Never mind - death will cure it all in due course!