Secularism

Catholic Answer

The secular clergy are all those clergy who are under a diocesian Bishop instead of a religious Order (the later being religious clergy). The diocesian clergy primarily have as their duties whatever their bishop assigns them. In most cases, this is being a priest serving in a parish, although there are, of course, secular clergy, serving in diocesian offices, teaching in schools, and any other job that their Bishop might have for them.

from Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1980

Secular clergy. Clergy who are engaged for the most part in pastoral work and who are not members of a religious institute. They are not bound by a vow of poverty or community life. But their celibacy, in the Latin Church, is under solemn oath and they promise obedience to a bishop as their immediate superior under the Pope.

"Secular" means something that's devoid of any involvement, of any kind, with religion.

"Non-secular" means pretty much the exact opposite.

One with "secular values," then, has, by definition, categorically non-religious values.

I'm troubled by the premise of the question, though, because the opposite would be one with "non-secular" (or religious) values...

...and those are not necessarily the same as "spiritual" values. There is, in fact, an entire "spiritual but not religious" movement afoot in the world, these days, which could, would and does fairly-convincingly argue the point that being "spiritual" and being "religious" are two very different things.

If so, then it's possible to have both secular (non-religious) and spiritual (not necessarily either religious or non-religious) values...

...and if that's the case, then the comparison posed in the question is categorically impossible to make.

However, there are many -- particularly in the religious (as opposed to spiritual, but not religious) community -- who believe that being spiritual, but not religious is a distinction without an actual difference; and so they would argue that what the asker clearly meant is whether or not there's a difference between the management styles of one who's secular (non-religious) versus one who's religious (non-secular). They would argue that the asker is using the word "spiritual" to mean "religious;" that for the asker, they're synonymous.

If so, then that's the question: What is the difference between secular values and spiritual/religious values in management?

To answer that, one would have to first make the point that religious belief does not necessarily result in virtue, honesty, a good work ethic, or pretty much anything else that a manager in business would want in an employee. Religion is not required in order for a person to be good. Persons who have no religious beliefs -- who are are, in fact, declared atheists; aka, "secular humanists" -- often cite the so-called "Golden Rule" (always treat others the way you want to be treated by said others) as their reason for being virtuous, honest, and good workers. They insist that the Golden Rule is inherently non-religious/secular; and so religious belief by a worker isn't required in order for said worker to be the kind of good worker which any goiod manager would want.

Of course, the irony of the secular humanists trying to so neatly differentiate the Golden Rule from religious belief is that the Golden Rule, as it happens, is one of the only tenets present, in one form or another, in the sacred texts of all 13 of the world's major religions; and also the vast majority of the literally hundreds -- nay, thousands -- of the lesser ones. But, alas, that is a mere interesting parenthetical aside which doesn't really address the question.

The point is, simply, that religion is not necessary in a worker in order to ensure that s/he will be a good worker.

So, then, if the manager has religious (non-secular) values, he or she is more likely to look for qualities -- religiously-related qualities -- in the worker which may not necessarily be there (especially if said worker is a secular humanist). The lack of said religious qualities in the work may be looked-down upon by the religious manager, who may then let it affect whether the worker gets promoted, or is placed onto a special project team, etc.

If the opposite were true -- that the manager is secular (non-religious), but the worker is religious (non-secular) -- then the manager might find the worker's religious beliefs to be nothing but ridiculous fantasy. In such case, the non-religious manager may think to himself/herself that s/he would not want to promote, or put onto a special project team, any worker who believed in what are, from the manager's perspective, mere fairy tales.

Other problems can also exist whenever the manager is religious (non-secular)... problems having to do with the atmosphere of the workplace. If the religious (non-secular) manager allows his/her beliefs to be conspicuously present throughout the workplace, then secular (non-religious) workers may be offended, intimidated, or come to believe that they will not be promoted or put onto special project teams because of their lack of religious belief. A largely-religious workplace can feel very hostile to non-religious workers.

There is, then, in the end, no place for religious/spiritual values in management, and/or in managers, and/or in the workplace. Period.

The workplace, and its workers, should always be managed secularly (non-religiously), even if the manager is religious (non-secular) in his/her private life.

Similarly, workers should, even if they're religious (non-secular) in their private lives, should nevertheless keep it to themselves while at work.

Even if both management and the workers are religious (non-secular), the business should, nevertheless, be run secularly (non-religiously).

And the law of the United States is in sync with all of that by prohibiting employers to allow things like religioin to factor-in, in any way, to management decisions regarding hiring, firing, promotions, etc.

A business run based on religious/spiritual values is a poorly-run business...

...even if it's an inherently religious business... even if it's a church. There is simply no place -- no place -- in the workplace for religion. Period.

A:

The Song of Solomon is a highly erotic tale about extra-marital sex, so modern love songs should be fine.

The real meaning of secular is "worldly", not spiritual nor religious.

YET: the word Sect is about groups of people devoted to a religion or spiritual belief.

It would be better to avoid confusion, to learn just ONE definition first (secular, or worldly), read and study that a few times daily, 7 times daily for 7 days.

AND then after that, learn the word Sect being devotion or spiritual belief, study, read the real meaning a few times daily, 7 times daily for 7 days.

THEN you know the difference. Most people would, if they learn both of those words "too close together", around 4 years later, would not know for CERTAIN about this. I, also, had that problem, so the above is the answer, for myself as well. I got the meaning of those words from a Chambers Mini Dictionary, a good dictionary since it's not rude nor explicit.

According to Wikipedia, in studies of religion, modern democracies are generally recognized as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion (beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority of religious leaders over political decisions.

Positive Ideals behind the secular society:

1. Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.
2. Equality of all people.
3. Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.
4. Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.

A:

Secular literature includes science, history, philosophy, fiction and just about everything except religion. Studying a range of secular literature ensures a breadth and depth of general knowledge, but also helps you will to understand literary allusions, including those found in the Bible. It teaches the intellectual openness you will need to accept the perspective of the authors, and opens your mind to another world. It also presents alternate, sometimes even radical perspectives, so that the reader develops a sophisticated point of view.

Whether a Christian should study secular literature that examines religion and religious beliefs depends on the person. Someone whose faith is weak but yet feels the need to have faith, could put that faith at risk by studying this kind of literature and might be advised not to do so. On the other hand, a Christian who feels secure in his or her faith should be capable of studying this kind of literature, understanding the arguments presented and yet remain a Christian. A Christian with strong personal beliefs but who is willing to learn the truth about religion, whatever that truth may be, would of course wish to study literature that examines religion and religious beliefs. It depends on how certain you feel about your religious beliefs.

Humanism is concerned with human matters rather than divine or supernatural matters. Secular means concerned with the affairs of this world this life and not with religious beliefs and the hereafter.

Secular humanism does not make . . . does not need to make any assumptions. Secular humanism claims knowledge through factual evidence, critical reasoning, and scientific methods of inquiry. It acknowledges that new knowledge and experience is constantly changing our perspectives on truth. It is a commitment to making this life meaningful through better understanding of ourselves and our world. It promotes a rational approach to social and political issues that enhance life for everyone and holds the convictions that eduction, reason, tolerance and good will can help to build a better world. Humanity itself is the measure of all things and nature is self perpetuating and eternal.
The secular humanist assumes nothing. We make assessments based on tangible or observable facts; things that can be objectively verified as real are included within the common perception of reality.