What book are we talking about now: the Koran, the bible, Harry Potter?

That is precisely the point. I don't believe that book enshrines truth. I prefer the truth rather than "symbols" of the truth. Is your contention that if there were no bibles in the courtroom that the law would fall apart? On what basis?

I could pick other definitions if you want, but none of them would match your definition. Your wish to respect all beliefs equally. This isn't secularism. Secularism is at best subjecting all beliefs to equal treatment, and deciding rationally which ones to respect. I'm sorry that you think it is, but it plainly isn't. Words have meanings, and, yes they vary to an extent, but your definition falls outside the scope of any definition of secularism that I've heard: I'm sorry if that upsets and annoys you.

Here is your quote:

Now, forgive me, but I don't see "except a belief in Astrology, or Scientology, or Ghosts etc. etc." anywhere. Are you saying that your secular state wouldn't respect ALL beliefs? How would you judge which ones to respect and which ones not to respect? (BTW "stop being childish" is what someone says when they know they're losing an argument, which you are).

None of them match my definition........? Do you just make this up? Do you have even a passing knowledge of this whole area? For someone who posts repeatedly on this general topic, it is embarrassing.

Try this; have you ever heard of secular pluralism? You may find a definition in Wikepedia and if you do, try and read and understand it. I dont like definitions for undefinables but here is one definition of secular pluralism just to illustrate how, plainly, secularism is a more complex area than what you believe:

A system operating under secular pluralism is not under the control of any religion or singular belief system, nor does it give primacy to any religion, but is representative, respectful, and accommodating of the various cultures, faiths and world-views of the different communities within its jurisdiction.

There is more than one form of secularism. Educate yourself.

And by the way, stop being childish is what I say when someone is being childish, which you are.....

Might I point out the obvious and that English words are constructs to allow someone to communicate their thoughts. The word "Secularism" for example can be defined as meaning "Apple Tree". But it's quite clear that not what Tmesis meant. So when someone starts this kind of guff " well such and such a word can mean such" in an exchange I start to become suspicious that he he has nothing of substance to say and is not only being childish but bordering on demagogic

That is not "secularism", that is "pluralism". If it were "secularism" it would be called "secularism", not "secular pluralism". Words have meanings. You can say "they ought to mean this" if you would like, but, of course, that describes your "ought" and not what "is".

You could have said "yes, you are right, pluralism more accurately describes my belief" instead of trying to bluster through.

More importantly though, you have also failed to say why you wouldn't respect the belief of Astrology practiced by a government minister. In your ultra-respectful pluralistic society how would you decide which beliefs to respect and which beliefs not to respect?

Nope, there is a lot more to pluralism than that!! Secular pluralism is a "form" of secularism whether you agree with it or not......

This stuff is not rocket science. Compare and contrast the secular states in Iraq, France and the US to see the huge differences that exist under the umbrella of secularism.

In any case, stop trying to get so locked into strict definitions. Its a narrow-minded manner of looking at the world. Religons have engaged in this type of tunnel-vision over centuries. I would have thought that you would want to depart from that kind of approach.

As for your last point, like anything in any society, the society itself will decide what is worthy of respect, what may be worthy of protection and what is worthy of being ignored. I would have my views but that would be less important than the view of society generally. Obviously, whether the belief is held and practised by substantial members of society would be an important factor.

You say that "society will decide". How, exactly? By use of reason? Surely if we use reason to decide then all beliefs will not be respected, as there simply isn't a "reason" to believe them. That is secularism. And, your "let's respect all beliefs" is destroyed by society using reason. Unless you have another way in which society can decide then you have shot yourself in the foot.

Oh, but you do. In the last sentence you are throwing out all secularist ideals and saying that the majority opinion should be respected simply because it is the majority opinion (not because there is more "reason" to believe it). The problem with this is that it describes exactly a theocracy, the opposite of secularism.

So, are you are secularist, or do you want a theocracy?

When did I say majority?
If you want to argue, please argue against what I have said, not what you believe I have said.

No you got hung up on definitions and failed to justify your position. Your fallback on to "well society decides" is crap. Society discusses before it decides. That's what we're doing. At what point in this discussion are you going to stop dancing?

Read the thread before posting Garland.
I was the one who said that secularism was not amenable to a definition or was amenable to a number of definitions......