Secularism is not the solution

[CTRLALTDEL]

Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
"Specifics? Well then, let's take a close look at the secular "progressive" (haha) liberal movie industry promoted by both the secular Eurotrash and the secular Hollywierdos. If you don't see destruction here you just want to remain blind."



So making movies to entertain is a greater sin than FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS AND KILLING PEOPLE??

 

[glockmail]

When someone breaks into your house, hauls you to a movie theater, chains you into a seat, puts your head in a vise, and props your eyes open with toothpicks to force you to watch a movie, you'll have a valid complaint. Until then, I suggest that you are perfectly free to avoid anything you might find offensive. We don't need legislation to protect idiots who aren't smart enough to figure out the movie rating system or those who are too lazy to monitor what movies their kids go to.

the radical mulsims disagree. They think you are polluting their culture.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When someone breaks into your house, hauls you to a movie theater, chains you into a seat, puts your head in a vise, and props your eyes open with toothpicks to force you to watch a movie, you'll have a valid complaint. Until then, I suggest that you are perfectly free to avoid anything you might find offensive. We don't need legislation to protect idiots who aren't smart enough to figure out the movie rating system or those who are too lazy to monitor what movies their kids go to.

Same old tired argument you've always made. You are the kind of person who chooses to remain blind. Even pornography raising its ugly head during a Super Bowl didn't wake you up.

Maybe fundamentalists have made the word bad with their behavior.

I'll allow you to demonstrate that God has commanded us to be governed by theocracies.

no it's not, it only opposed to theocracy.

Name one. Just be absolutely sure your example is derived from keeping religion from being government and keeping government from being religion.

the fundementalists that cannot parse the difference between secular and athiest; the same fundementalists that cannot understand that being anti-secular, when referring to governement means being pro-theocracy.

I didn't say they were. I said fundamentalists that cannot, or refuse to, parse the difference between secular and athiest are bent on a theocratic aggenda.

So do secularists--even the Christian secularists.

This is a complete denial of the reality of what anti-secular fundamentalism is, and what these particular fundementalist retards are all about.

Your argument is just as tired as Missleman's. You just want to nitpick and parse. You refuse to admit the obvious. You also seem to fear U.S. Christian fundamentalism more than the radical Muslim fundamentalism that is actually out to kill you.

So making movies to entertain is a greater sin than FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS AND KILLING PEOPLE??

I never said that. Perhaps some radical Muslims have.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

"Same old tired argument you've always made. You are the kind of person who chooses to remain blind. Even pornography raising its ugly head during a Super Bowl didn't wake you up."


LOL!!!!! The "Tit" of Mass Destruction. Run!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[glockmail]

"Same old tired argument you've always made. You are the kind of person who chooses to remain blind. Even pornography raising its ugly head during a Super Bowl didn't wake you up."


LOL!!!!! The "Tit" of Mass Destruction. Run!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You called it Screaming Eagle: blind. Simply amazing.

 

[MissileMan]

the radical mulsims disagree. They think you are polluting their culture.

So?

 

[LOki]

I think Scamingeagle's point is that a lot of secularist are all for the hedonistic life style. If it feels good why not do it. this is not the same thing as a healthy society.

I think you're making this shit up.

I would also add that you can not have total inclusion for a healthy society either. If you were to let in every fanaticle nutball where would society be. Unfortunately that is exactly what a lot of the "Liberal" "free thnking" "hedonistic" secularist think we should do.

You're making this shit up too--I could just as easily assert that religious fundamentalists commit genocide and mass murder, and feel fully justified in doing so, so long as they remain "faithful" and "true" to their "morally superior" religious tenets.

This will ultimately be the down fall of the US as I see it. We will be so blinded by our own freedom's we want, that we wont see all the subversive coming in and slowly eroding our freedoms by saying you have to repect my beliefs because I might be offended if you dont (gee kinda sounds like now)

This scenario (the "down fall" et al.) is much more likely if the secularists are overcome by fundamentalists, and these fundamentalists make their religion congruent with government.

This is what comes from being all inclusive. that is the biggest problem..

All inclusive--like government inclusive in religion.

 

[Annie]

Loki and Nukeman are having a serious problem communicating.

 

[MissileMan]

Same old tired argument you've always made. You are the kind of person who chooses to remain blind. Even pornography raising its ugly head during a Super Bowl didn't wake you up.

As yet, it's an old, tired argument that you can't refute. And I want some of the dope you're on if you think a naked breast is pornographic. To me, you protest too much. I'll bet you're one of those closet freaks like Haggard. You like to scream sinner at everyone else during the day and snuggle a strap-on at night.

 

[nukeman]

I think you're making this shit up..

I dont need to make a bunch of shit up!!!

You're making this shit up too--I could just as easily assert that religious fundamentalists commit genocide and mass murder, and feel fully justified in doing so, so long as they remain "faithful" and "true" to their "morally superior" religious tenets.

This scenario (the "down fall" et al.) is much more likely if the secularists are overcome by fundamentalists, and these fundamentalists make their religion congruent with government.

All inclusive--like government inclusive in religion.

Some religious fundamentalists do commit genocide and mass murder they are called Muslims

However our country was not founded on Islamic principle but Christian and if we were to stick to those fundamentals than this would continue to be a great society.

Unfortunately our value system has been so watered down by religious types that do not "RESPECT" others and secularist who say if it feels good just do it no one will mind.

 

[nukeman]

Loki and Nukeman are having a serious problem communicating.

Not me!! he's the one who comes out saying I'm "making shit up" .

I must say that was one of his more thought provoking responses..

 

[Annie]

Not me!! he's the one who comes out saying I'm "making shit up" .

I must say that was one of his more thought provoking responses..

Me? I'm all confused, but carry on...

 

[LOki]

Your argument is just as tired as Missleman's.

Yet not so tired that it doesn't pummel your arguments roundly. If my argument is tired, it's just tired of beating yours over, and over again.

You just want to nitpick and parse. You refuse to admit the obvious.

Nonsense. You just create a bogeyman out of nothing and logical fallacy, and hope your frothy patriotism will buy you argumentative traction.

You also seem to fear U.S. Christian fundamentalism more than the radical Muslim fundamentalism that is actually out to kill you.

You just made this up out of nothing and logical fallacy. I have no more (or less) fear of U.S. Christian fundamentalism, than I do radical Muslim fundamentalism--they are different brands of violent and backwards reactioary retards attempting to achieve their own theocraticly empowered goals.

Where government is concerned, secularism is nothing more than keeping government and religion separate. The ONLY people who have an axe to grind with secular government; the ONLY people who oppose separating government from religion, ScreamingEagle, are THEOCRATS. That's not parsing, that's not nitpicking, and that Muslim fundamentalism and anti-secularist Christian fundamentalism have theocracy in common is patently obvious. What is also patently obvious is that theocracy, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise, is a bad idea.

 

[Gurdari]

I'd be interested to know where you live, because here in North Carolina very few people I know are not religious. You don't have a monopoly on human rights, peace, and rule of law either.

Nice reversal - I said we TOO hold those things dear after it was implied that secular/atheists/etc were self-destructive hedoinists ruinig society... I don't think ANY group has a monopoly on any behavior.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I have no more (or less) fear of U.S. Christian fundamentalism, than I do radical Muslim fundamentalism--they are different brands of violent and backwards reactioary retards attempting to achieve their own theocraticly empowered goals.

Your illogical bias is showing….I don't believe most religious fundamentalists want to establish religion in our government….at least the Christian fundamentalists don't….however we do know that radical Muslims want to establish a theocracy.

Where government is concerned, secularism is nothing more than keeping government and religion separate. The ONLY people who have an axe to grind with secular government; the ONLY people who oppose separating government from religion, ScreamingEagle, are THEOCRATS. That's not parsing, that's not nitpicking, and that Muslim fundamentalism and anti-secularist Christian fundamentalism have theocracy in common is patently obvious. What is also patently obvious is that theocracy, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise, is a bad idea.

Again, I've never heard of any Christians in the United States recently attempting to establish a state religion. On the other hand, I've heard of many recent reports of secularists attempting to squash religious expression.

So I suppose you would support Communism - after all, it is a SECULAR form of government, right?

 

[MissileMan]

On the other hand, I've heard of many recent reports of secularists attempting to squash religious expression.

No, what you've heard are reports of whacko liberals attempting to squash religious expression. Secularists are quite satisfied to let anyone express themselves religiously as long as they aren't trying to insert religion into public education or government.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, what you've heard are reports of whacko liberals attempting to squash religious expression. Secularists are quite satisfied to let anyone express themselves religiously as long as they aren't trying to insert religion into public education or government.

No they're not. Here's one large example of blatant secular suppression of religious expression in France:

Forced Secularism in French Schools

On September 2, 2004, France’s loi sur laïcité (law on secularism) took effect in all state schools. This law reads in pertinent part:

Dans les écoles, les collèges et les lycées publics, le port de signes ou tenues par lesquels les élèves manifestent ostensiblement une appartenance religieuse est interdit.

In public [primary and secondary schools], the wearing of symbols or clothing through which the pupils ostensibly manifest a religious appearance is prohibited.

The ban on all symbols or clothing that create a religious appearance means that students cannot wear yarmulkes, large crucifixes, Sikh turbans, or of course Islamic headscarves, the actual target of the legislation. The word “ostensibly,” however, allows pupils to continue the traditional French practice of wearing small Christian crucifixes.

Since the law came into effect, at least 639 problematic cases have arisen. Of these, 550 have been “resolved,” as the Education Ministry puts it, in most cases by female Muslim pupils ultimately agreeing not to wear bandanas or Islamic headscarves while in school. At least 48 children have been expelled from school, mostly Muslim girls who have refused to take off their headscarves, along with 3 Sikh boys who refused to remove their turbans.

As is typical for this sort of law, the enforcement has had far wider scope than the actual text of the law demands. Many schools and teachers who misunderstand the scope of the “secularism law” have prohibited teachers who are members of the clergy from wearing religious garb such as cassocks that they have worn for centuries. One school intially banned a Christmas tree (though it is unclear how pupils might wear it), until it decided that the tree was a pagan rather than a Christian symbol. Perhaps the worst example of the law’s chilling effects on speech came in December, when the teachers at a school in northern France returned 1300 boxes of St. Nicholas Day chocolates to the mayor of the town who had, in accordance with long tradition, sent them to the pupils. The reason? The chocolates’ foil wrappers had tiny crosses on them.

The secularism law strikes at the heart of public religious expression because it does not allow students to identify themselves as believers in a certain faith. Because many students are required by their religion to identify themselves through symbols or clothing, the prohibition forces them to violate their most closely held beliefs. Moreover, by banning religious speech while allowing similar non-religious speech (for example, students are still able to wear clothing that reflects their political beliefs), the state has determined that religious speech is inferior to all other speech. The law also discriminates against religious believers and religious speech because it allows non-believers to wear bandanas or beards, while forbidding religious pupils from doing the same things.

The secularism law clearly violates France’s obligations under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both of these international covenants protect the right of every human being to "manifest [his or her] religion or belief" "in public or private"--something the secularism law explicitly forbids.

The Becket Fund is, in collaboration with United Sikhs and European human rights lawyers, advising the three French Sikh boys who have been expelled from school for wearing the turban their religion requires. These boys are the latest victims of religious intolerance in France, but they are unlikely to be the last.

http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/97.html

 

[MissileMan]

No they're not. Here's one large example of blatant secular suppression of religious expression in France:

1. I don't live in France, neither do you.

2. The law was aimed at fundamentalist Muslims, not Christians.

3. The law was obviously misnamed. It would more accurately be called the "Whacko Lefty Scarf Reduction Law".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1. I don't live in France, neither do you.

So what? Secularism is secularism. Liberal secularists live in France too and they are typically a few years ahead of the secularists in the U.S. Religious suppression is already happening here in the U.S. as well. The example in France, however, is quite dramatic and you can clearly see where secularism is taking things.

2. The law was aimed at fundamentalist Muslims, not Christians.

So? The secular law was aimed at freedom of religious expression.

3. The law was obviously misnamed. It would more accurately be called the "Whacko Lefty Scarf Reduction Law".

or how about the "Secular Suppression of Religious Expression Law". Maybe the next step is to make all the children look alike and make them wear red scarves with the hammer and sickle embroidered on it.

 

[LOki]

Your illogical bias is showing….I don't believe most religious fundamentalists want to establish religion in our government….at least the Christian fundamentalists don't….

Those opposed to a secular government are. Those are the fundamentalist of which I speak.

Again, I've never heard of any Christians in the United States recently attempting to establish a state religion.

Look into GWB's faith based initiatives.

On the other hand, I've heard of many recent reports of secularists attempting to squash religious expression.

Name one. And your little example from France doesn't count, since the law cited is patently anti-secular.

So I suppose you would support Communism - after all, it is a SECULAR form of government, right?

No, and after all, communism is NOT necessarily a secular form of government, certainly if the Soviets and China are your examples.