(02-26-2010 08:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm not against religious people running for office. I'm saying that organized religion shouldn't determine how everyone has to act. Which seems pretty much the same as what you're saying.

And here's a better description of why your position can't work

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...r-reasons/

First of all, why would anyone care what the writer of that article thinks? Secondly, you're saying that the government that we've had for over 200 years doesn't work?

(02-26-2010 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 08:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm not against religious people running for office. I'm saying that organized religion shouldn't determine how everyone has to act. Which seems pretty much the same as what you're saying.

And here's a better description of why your position can't work

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...r-reasons/

First of all, why would anyone care what the writer of that article thinks? Secondly, you're saying that the government that we've had for over 200 years doesn't work?

In order
1. You're kind of sensitive about being shown that you're wrong.

2. Our government is not "secular" in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, you have defined "secular" in such a way to fit the way our government works, but that's mostly because you don't really understand the broader subject.

(02-26-2010 11:37 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 11:24 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 08:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm not against religious people running for office. I'm saying that organized religion shouldn't determine how everyone has to act. Which seems pretty much the same as what you're saying.

And here's a better description of why your position can't work

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...r-reasons/

First of all, why would anyone care what the writer of that article thinks? Secondly, you're saying that the government that we've had for over 200 years doesn't work?

In order
1. You're kind of sensitive about being shown that you're wrong.

2. Our government is not "secular" in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, you have defined "secular" in such a way to fit the way our government works, but that's mostly because you don't really understand the broader subject.

My, aren't we arrogant? What makes you think I was being sensitive? There's just no particular reason for me to care what that person thinks.

I've read quite a bit, and every time I've seen the term secular used in regards to government, it's been in the sense of whether or not a religious body controls government decisions. I'm sorry if you disagree, and I'm sure you can define it differently - to some extent, we are talking semantics. But the dictionary shows it the way I'm describing it too. Don't sit there and tell me I'm wrong when I'm not. Maybe if you read religious articles, they refer to 'secular' differently. Fine.

I missed it. It seem like NIU07 has pwn3d this argument. Did he get DQ'ed for using logical reasoning skills on a message board?

(02-26-2010 11:45 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I've read quite a bit, and every time I've seen the term secular used in regards to government, it's been in the sense of whether or not a religious body controls government decisions. I'm sorry if you disagree, and I'm sure you can define it differently

Why should I? Your OED didn't define it that way.

(02-25-2010 07:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:44 PM)Yahweh Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted.

Wrong. One of the biggest flaws that gets promoted is that the US was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation.

No one thinks the country was intended to be a Christian nation. Do you misread everything?

(02-26-2010 01:25 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 07:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:44 PM)Yahweh Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted.

Wrong. One of the biggest flaws that gets promoted is that the US was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation.

No one thinks the country was intended to be a Christian nation. Do you misread everything?

Ok, show me one post made here that states anything about wanting to make this a solely Christian nation, I.e. no Mormons, Jews, etc., etc., etc., etc.

....waiting....

(02-26-2010 01:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:25 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 07:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:44 PM)Yahweh Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted.

Wrong. One of the biggest flaws that gets promoted is that the US was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation.

No one thinks the country was intended to be a Christian nation. Do you misread everything?

Ok, show me one post made here that states anything about wanting to make this a solely Christian nation, I.e. no Mormons, Jews, etc., etc., etc., etc.

....waiting....

Um, try writing your response correctly. While there are many on this board who do want this to be a Christian nation, that is besides the point. Many on here-and many other places- BELIEVE(and have stated) that this country was started as a Christian nation.

(02-26-2010 01:39 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Um, try writing your response correctly. While there are many on this board who do want this to be a Christian nation, that is besides the point. Many on here-and many other places- BELIEVE(and have stated) that this country was started as a Christian nation.

Wrong. Unlike you, we understand the US Constitution. Yes, our judicial system was based on Judeo-Christian principles, but no where in our founding documents did it create a "Christian" nation as that was one of the issues the founders adamantly opposed due to their treatment by the crown.

This is a Christian nation. Because our government isn't a theocracy doesn't change that.

(02-26-2010 12:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 11:45 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I've read quite a bit, and every time I've seen the term secular used in regards to government, it's been in the sense of whether or not a religious body controls government decisions. I'm sorry if you disagree, and I'm sure you can define it differently

Why should I? Your OED didn't define it that way.

From wordiq.com: (this one's more explicit)

Secular in its most common meaning, means "outside of religion". It can be used in a neutral sense, e.g. when at the end of the 17th century most sonatas were used in church services, a "secular" sonata meant nothing more than a sonata not used in a church service (without any connotation of the composer being religious or not). See secularity as relative worldliness.

In current political and philosophical discourse, it refers to a government obeying civil laws (as opposed to religious instructions like the Islamic shariah, the Catholic canon law or rabbinacal law), independently from any religion, and not favoring any particular religion; in addition, secularism also includes the priority of the civil laws over any religious legislation. Nowadays, all major religions accept this, except for significant schools in Islam (which proclaim just the opposite).

On the other hand, secular can have the connotation of a dismissive conviction regarding religious matters: see secularism.

(02-26-2010 01:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  This is a Christian nation. Because our government isn't a theocracy doesn't change that.

See Rebs. Paul M just proved me right.

(02-26-2010 01:59 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  This is a Christian nation. Because our government isn't a theocracy doesn't change that.

See Rebs. Paul M just proved me right.

Can you not comprehend what I said? D o y o u n e e d m e t o g o s l o w e r ?

(02-25-2010 04:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 02:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Giordano Bruno is not a fictional account. Galileo being threatened by religious authorities is not a fictional account.

The way you describe it is fictional.

Galileo was threated by the scientific authorities of his day. Yes, they also happened to be clergy.

*GASP* there goes myth number one, the church actually undertook much of the scientific progress that occurred in the Middle ages.

Secondly, the opposition to Copernicus/Galileo was based on the insistence that Aristotle was right. Yes, scientists clinging to a flawed secular philosopher who didn't have data to back his his theories, got them into trouble. Sound familiar?

Then they made things worse by trying to defend their position based on religion.

Furthermore, most of Galileo's trouble came because he was rivals w/ a powerful Cardinal who disliked him personally. Astronomy was just a convenient excuse.

In the end, ironically enough, the RC Church allowed Galileo to promote heliocentrism theory if he just referred to it as a mathematical tool. Which is exactly what it is.

Now, we can look at your purely secular governments, which is just a repeat of a thread we've already had recently. We have the Marxist Governments of the 20th C, we've had the Robespierre and the French Terror. Maybe you could even throw in Alexander and Ghengis Khan. Do any of those seem like benevolent governments and free societies?

Actually, as usual, it is your account that is fiction. In the end, Galileo was not allowed to promote heliocentrism. Far from it. He was forced to recant and never published again. Galileo was not charged, convicted, and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life because he disagreed with Aristotle. It was because heliocentrism was contrary to the scriptures.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...ation.html

Quote:We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

You are right though, it was bad to disagree with Aristotle. Why was that? Oh that's right, because Aristotle's teachings had been incorporated into catholic dogma (see St. Thomas Aquinas for example). Hardly a result of secularism run amok, no matter what you need to believe.

Secular good.

Progressive 90% bad.

(02-26-2010 02:39 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:59 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  This is a Christian nation. Because our government isn't a theocracy doesn't change that.

See Rebs. Paul M just proved me right.

Can you not comprehend what I said? D o y o u n e e d m e t o g o s l o w e r ?

You don't need to slow down. You just claimed this is a Christian nation. You proved my point.

(02-27-2010 02:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 02:39 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:59 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  This is a Christian nation. Because our government isn't a theocracy doesn't change that.

See Rebs. Paul M just proved me right.

Can you not comprehend what I said? D o y o u n e e d m e t o g o s l o w e r ?

You don't need to slow down. You just claimed this is a Christian nation. You proved my point.

Depending on sources, 76% or more in this country are Christian. What do you not understand about that?

(02-27-2010 03:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-27-2010 02:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 02:39 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:59 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-26-2010 01:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  This is a Christian nation. Because our government isn't a theocracy doesn't change that.

See Rebs. Paul M just proved me right.

Can you not comprehend what I said? D o y o u n e e d m e t o g o s l o w e r ?

You don't need to slow down. You just claimed this is a Christian nation. You proved my point.

Depending on sources, 76% or more in this country are Christian. What do you not understand about that?

...and since Robert hates Christians, but will defend Islam with his last breath, can you show me a country that has 76% of it's citizens who are Muslims that's actually considered a "free" country, Robert?

Didn't think so. The freest nations on this planet are majority Christian. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. Islamic Shari'a is happening all over the globe, from the continent of Africa to Asia to the South Pacific, and we're not going to allow that tripe here. I know you're too damn stupid to understand the danger with it, but as long as you and I are sharing this country, I'm protecting myelf and people I know. You can defend Islam all you want, they'll just use you as a pawn like all tyrants do, until your use is no longer needed.

(02-27-2010 03:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Depending on sources, 76% or more in this country are Christian. What do you not understand about that?

I'm afraid I have to point out that you're resorting to Robert's favorite tactic of using popularity to justify a position.

The popularity of any stance is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is valid and of merit.

Furthermore,

Blah blah blah blah Treatry of Tripoli blah blah blah Benjamin Franklin blah blah blah blah blah Thomas Jefferson blah blah blah blah read some Hitchens and Dawkins blah blah blah rehashed topic.

(02-27-2010 07:35 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-27-2010 03:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Depending on sources, 76% or more in this country are Christian. What do you not understand about that?

I'm afraid I have to point out that you're resorting to Robert's favorite tactic of using popularity to justify a position.

The popularity of any stance is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is valid and of merit.

Furthermore,

Blah blah blah blah Treatry of Tripoli blah blah blah Benjamin Franklin blah blah blah blah blah Thomas Jefferson blah blah blah blah read some Hitchens and Dawkins blah blah blah rehashed topic.

Just because we're not a De Facto Christian nation doesn't mean we're not a De Jure Christian nation. I think the fact that others aren't forced to become Christians, when the majority of Americans are Christians, should be a testament to the tolerance of Christianity. Think it would be the same with Muslims?