Why does it have to be "Secular"?

I have a lot of articles to edit, and almost as many to write.  The laundry is piled up, and my lovely new floors (they are lovely, and sometimes they're even clean) need a sweep and a swiffer. I have to exercise, because I've been letting it go lately and my back is really complaining. And I'm way behind on a book I'm working on.

It's the worst time to be writing here, but all those other things just aren't going to get done with this entry jittering at my fingers and messing with my head.

I hope that it will be possible to distinguish here between being angry at someone who wrote something (which I'm not) and being rattled by something that was written. I have relied on and valued the feedback here so much; the last thing I want to do is slap a mute on it.  

But I am rattled, and it is something that really ought to be talked about, so here goes.

Words are not their dictionary definitions. Connotations are more important than what the so-called "real" meaning of any word is.

"Secular" means non-religious. To me, non- means simply that. Non- is not, to me, the same as anti-.

There are many who don't feel that way at all about this word. Their opinions are just as valid as mine, because a language reflects its users. I can (and do) argue that secular ought to be a neutral word, but I can't make that true. So it's not a word to be thrown around lightly in a largely religious society.

Bon Appetit magazine is a secular magazine, because religion is a non-issue for it. It can have a whole section devoted to bread recipes without once mentioning that bread played a hugely significant role in Jesus' last supper, and no one turns a hair. Plenty of perfectly religious people buy and enjoy this magazine, because even if their spiritual beliefs permeate every aspect of their lives right down to preparing meals -- and many people's beliefs do just that -- these people also believe that they can take care of the sacred aspect of dinner, but they could use a little help in the recipe department.

But if the magazine called itself "Secular Food Preparation," there would be an uproar. Or at least a pained and baffled silence. Why on earth would a publication call itself that?

There would be no reason to, because cooking magazines are understood to be sitting on the sidelines, morally speaking.

All this is leading up to the fact that I was asked why exactly I have to call my magazine Secular Homeschooling. The first word is deeply disturbing to many people who might otherwise enjoy what the magazine has to offer.

There are some people who might think that my answer to that would be, "Good! Anyone who'd be disturbed by the name shouldn't be reading it."

That's not true. If I didn't think this magazine has a great deal to offer to all homeschoolers, whatever their beliefs or lack thereof, I wouldn't have started it.

So why not, as this person suggested, up my circulation just by changing one word?

First of all, it wouldn't work that way. The people who subscribed exactly because it was called Secular Homeschooling would rightly feel betrayed. And I can't imagine that those who didn't subscribe for the same reasons would think that I'd had some kind of change of heart unless I put the word out that I'd had some kind of road to Damascus conversion.

There's no changing now. The real issue is why I called it what I did in the first place.

The person who wrote to me and brought all these issues to mind suggested several perfectly neutral names for a general homeschooling magazine. What she didn't mention is that there are already quite a few homeschooling magazines with plain, ordinary names whose content is far from neutral, or even inclusive, religiously speaking.

The Old Schoolhouse is not a name that makes me assume it's a specifically and deeply Christian publication. A friend of mine argued about this when I brought it up; she said that with a name like that, she wouldn't be surprised to hear that they were Christian. All right. But having a title that isn't not Christian isn't the same thing as calling yourself Above Rubies or Unless The Lord, as do two Christian homeschooling publications who want there to be no mistake made about their viewpoint and goals.

TOS says on the front page of its site that it's "for homeschooling families everywhere." Only when you click to read its mission statement do the editors state that their goal is "to produce a high quality biblically-based magazine."

Homeschooling Today has as its motto, "Learning from the Past with a Vision for the Future." Neither of those say "obviously Christian" to me. On their "About Us" page, however, they state that their work is "focused and specific. Our commitment to bring the homeschool community useful information and resources is supported by a Biblical conviction that God used families to change the world."

On Practical Homeschooling's site, you can read many articles that have appeared in past issues, including one about how to put Christ back into Christmas, another called "Soul Power" that outlines "a Bible reading plan that works," and "Hanging out with God." (I really wanted to stop and read that last one. Maybe after this next issue is finally put together.)

I am not saying that the people who give religious publications neutral names are attempting to be deceptive, or that they're doing anything wrong by calling themselves whatever they please. What I am saying is that for whatever reason, a homeschooling magazine that is specifically non-religious has to say so, or the point won't be taken.

Well, why say so, anyway? Why have it be such a point? Just be neutral religiously. As the writer pointed out, I could simply turn away anything with religious content.

How?

I have already had the unpleasant task of rejecting some of the writing that came my way. Not a lot, but some.

Because I'm upfront and honest about exactly what kind of magazine this is, I generally get exactly the kind of articles I want and need. That's nice for everyone involved.

If I put out a homeschooling magazine that didn't specifically state that the editorial slant was non-religious, I'd have a slew of inappropriate material coming my way.

What would I say when I rejected it?

Would I simply send the writer a blank rejection form? "Thank you for allowing us to read this article. We regret that it does not meet our present needs."

I've been on both sides of the editor's desk. I do my best to only send materials to other editors that I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to see in their publications.

How incredibly unkind would it be to perfectly well-meaning and talented writers if I told them that their work wasn't good enough when what I meant was that I had very specific ideas about what kind of writing I wanted to see -- but I wasn't going to share them?

Oh -- I could just trim any unwanted religious content.

Right. Except that anyone who was devout enough to be making references to their deity in an article was sure going to notice that I'd quietly taken them out. She'd be indignant, and rightly so. She'd want to know why. She'd probably rather not have the article published at all than have it chopped up in such a fashion.

Well, I could just turn away such an article, then, and say in my rejection that I don't accept materials with a religious slant or containing religious references.

In reply, the writer would ask indignantly why I hadn't had the decency to mention that on my "materials wanted" page.

Um -- it's a secret?

I don't want to upset anybody, so I just thought I wouldn't say it upfront?

I have a hidden agenda, and you stumbled on it? Please don't tell, because I don't want to lose readers?

And if rejecting writers isn't fun enough, telling advertisers that I can't take their money is a really good time. The only way I've been able to manage it is by explaining that SECULAR Homeschooling Magazine doesn't accept religious or anti-religious content.

I'm already getting inappropriate ads, and I'm being as upfront as it's possible to be. How's my day going to look when I start hiding behind some safely non-descript name?

Secular Homeschooling Magazine is going to alienate a hefty segment of the homeschooling population by its name alone. All the bitter wish lists and other popular content in the world won't change that. I don't like that, but I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that it's so.

I hadn't entirely realized what a dagger the word "secular" was when I decided on the name for the magazine, but I had an idea. I know that, because I know how I feel in that tiny pause after someone asks me, "So, what's the name of your magazine?"

There's nothing I want more than to just be left alone to mind my own business while others mind theirs. My comfort zone has harsh words to say to me pretty much every day regarding my choice of title.

But I'm also ferociously straightforward. I can't play this both ways. Any Christians reading this probably know a wonderfully apt quotation about trying to serve two masters at the same time.

I can't publish the magazine for people who want a religiously-neutral publication and also please those who think that in terms of Christianity, if you're not for it you're against it.

The latter have plenty of publications already.  Now the former have one, too.