for stories like this. Far too many people associate it with "atheist" and don't bother using it in any other way. And the first definition of the word supports that usage:

sec·u·lar/ˈsekyələr/adjective
1. denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
2. (of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.
3. of or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets.
4. (of a fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period.
5. occurring once every century or similarly long period (used especially in reference to celebratory games in ancient Rome).

Just use the word "churchless" then. It's not the same as secular. What this common use of "secular" is, though, is a sloppy definition, especially of intent.

That “essentially secular in belief and practice.” is a difficult grey area to categorize, when the people you're shuffling into it number into the tens of millions. Likely a large number of that group before adding skeptics, may believe of accept the possibility of a supernatural god, putting them in a agnostic/undecided sort of middle ground.

(I would quibble with the article's use of “There are tens of millions of active believers in America today", that's actually hundreds of millions, not tens, being about 200m people that are believers.)

Now look at the emboldened part of the definition for 'secular':

"Churchless" is not "secular" by the definition of 'secular' and 'churchless'. Thus my contention that people stop misusing them as the same. They are not. Words have meanings, not just whatever people think they should have based on their own worldview.

And just so I'm absolutely clear, here's the dictionary.com definition of "churchless":


Now, where exactly, does that seem even remotely like 'secular'?

So again, people are using the words wrong, and thus, projecting the wrong message to millions either unable or unwilling to notice the big difference.

I know what they mean, but since I believe in a largely secular society it riles me.

Bryant

but Americans seem intent on making up definitions to suit their points of view, even if their definition contradicts the actual one. I put up with the same problem all the time as a vegetarian.

"Do you eat fish?"
"Fish don't grow on trees or bushes, do they?"

Even then, they still think it's okay to call someone that eats fish or other animals a "vegetarian." It's a constant uphill battle with ignorance, and it seems that's going to be the case with this topic.

atheist churches which is interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/atheist-church/