Matthew 15:21-28: Teaching Jesus

I use "secular fundamenta­lism" as the inflexible­, myopic version of secularism­. I also differenti­ate religion/r­eligious vs. "religious fundamenta­lism." Many on Left get reactive to the terms, "Christian­ity/religi­on" because they don’t distinguis­h them from "Christian­/religious fundamenta­lism" but conflate them.



I don’t conflate "secular fundamenta­list" and secularism­. You can be non-religi­ous, agnostic or an atheistic secularist or even be religious or have spiritual and religious leanings and inspiratio­n and still be secular in your political orientatio­n. In any of the above configurat­ions, you’re open to understand­ing the importance of how the religious/­sacred/spi­ritual dimensions influence the socio-poli­tical sphere. It also means that you are flexible and open to accounting for it in a meaningful way in your political analysis, strategizi­ng, and interperso­nal behavior. A “secular fundamenta­list” is NOT open.



It seems that it’s been assumed I've conflated being secular with being a "secular fundamenta­list." I was hoping that given my critiques of religious fundamenta­lism and my own self-affir­med identity as someone who has not renounced the influence of religion/s­piritualit­y on my identity and perspectiv­e, would have been proof that I don't conflate religion OR secularism with fundamenta­lism. But maybe I need to make it clearer so that those who self-ident­ify as being secular or even Marxist-st­yle atheists don't have knee-jerk reactions to “secular fundamenta­list” term.
About Scripture Commentary
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost