Gerrit Erasmus

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Gerrit Erasmus!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Category names

My original comment: I have no objection to changing the name of Category:Secularism symbols to Category:Anti-religion symbols. However, my initial suggestion was made in good faith, as a contrast to Category:Pluralism symbols, and related to Category:Secularism. Should Category:Secularism likewise be renamed to Category:Anti-religion? –Gerrit Erasmus (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really like the name "Pluralism symbols" all that much either, since what it really means (the way you use it) is symbols of multiple religions placed side by side. ("Pluralism" is merely one particular interpretation of what is symbols of multiple religions placed side by side might mean, and is not necessarily the interpretation originally intended by those who placed symbols of multiple religions side by side.) However, I have no pithier and more accurate alternative category name to offer.

With respect to "Secularism symbols", I went strictly by the content of the images -- not one single image in this category was positively extolling the virtues and benefits of secularism (in the way that File:Happy Human black.svg presents a positive view of humanism). Instead, all except one image obviously presented a negative view of specific religions, while the remaining image was a little more opaque in its symbolism (File:State_atheism-red.png), but from its name seemed to have been created with the intent of oppressing religions, rather than merely expressing support for values of secularism. Therefore I moved the images to a category that more accurately reflected their content. However, we already have a category Category:Religionism (maybe also not such a great name); thank you for reminding me to add it. AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection to your changing the name. It was the assumption of lack of good faith in your comment that bothered me. Just because someone does not share your worldview does not mean they are being disingenuous.

I infer from your comments that you consider Secularism and Anti-religion to be two distinct concepts. Is that correct? If so, I have no objections to them being listed separately. Likewise, if (religious) Pluralism and Multi-religion are distinct concepts, then perhaps they should be listed separately, as well. I simply thought it would be helpful to use the recognized labels of corresponding political/social movements if they were available.

It's not clear to me what Category:Religionism is supposed to mean. After studying the discussion, it apparently is intended to mean religious intolerance. (Note the vagueness in Wikipedia's definition.) Is that correct? If so, that would seem a more appropriate name, and Category:Anti-religion / Category:Anti-religion symbols would fit under it. Was a decision ever made based on that 2007 discussion, or did it just fade away? Would it be appropriate to rename the category to Category:Religious intolerance now? I think I'll raise this question on that page. –Gerrit Erasmus (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my perspective, I see secularism as a movement growing over the past half-century in Europe and North America, seeking to ban religious expression in public. Its proponents are always devout atheists in my experience, espousing mottos such as "freedom from religion". They have likewise co-opted the slogan "separation of church and state" to mandate state suppression of religion, the precise opposite of what the phrase used to mean. Secularism is thus often difficult to distinguish in practice from state atheism.

Secularism stands in contrast to pluralism or multiculturalism, the official tolerance of all religions and cultures, enshrined in the First Amendment, and the official policy of the United States government (although not always practiced). Where pluralism welcomes all religions, secularism welcomes none.

So, yes, I see secularism and anti-religion as being effectively synonymous, and would have supposed that others did, too. However, if others perceive them as being distinct, I am perfectly willing to respect that view. Who knows, I may even come to agree with it. –Gerrit Erasmus (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

From my prespective, if an ideology or philosophy is more "furr" its own thing than it is "aginn" other views, then it should have a positive name (e.g. "Capitalism"), but if it's more "aginn" other views than it is "furr" its own thing, then it should have a negative name (e.g. "Anti-Communism"). I have no idea which of these two tendencies is more generally preponderant in modern secularism -- but when it came to the particular images in question, it was extremely clear that they were far more on the "aginn" side than on the "furr" side... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. That's fine. –Gerrit Erasmus (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)