secularity

It's not clear because secularity usually means the subject - usually an institution - is not tired to a specific religious order (like your definition implies).

In the west, increase in secularity has only affected the groups of people who would've been nominally religious (i.e.

It helped clarify a lot of things about the modern Western world and our relationship with religion and secularity.

The presumption of innocence is only a slogan in the US, just like the above mentioned secularity.

But it's an anomaly; church membership is still a good litmus test for secularity everywhere else.

As for religion and secularity… well, either there is a God, or there isn't.

If you're mad that the world embraced secularity over spiritualism, or that men aren't fist-fighting for resources, blame yourself for not modernizing.

How on earth do you think you can you avoid including religious content in history textbooks, irrespective of the secularity of the school?

I’m looking at Bill 21 and seeing a legislature that does not understand secularity or religion.

Otherwise secularity would never have spread in the first place.

If there is, secularity won't make it go away.

As are intelligence, education, secularity, and so on.

It has a lot of interesting ideas, but a key one is that the “subtraction thesis” of secularity is wrong.

I suspect part of the problem here is that secular society fails to turn an inward look on itself and recognize that their "secularity" is at the very least co-morbid with this problem.

The proof of that is in the huge rise of secularity after (i) we began to rationally understand the universe, including deep questions such as how our bodies minds work, the origin the universe, etc, and (ii) religious freedom meant people could freely reject the dominant religion and not be killed for it, which is usually a pretty strong motivator to "love" the dominant religion.

Secularity (I am a secular Buddhist) wasn't even too well defined in the time of Buddha I think.