Recently I saw a documentary on the English author George Eliot (pen name).
She ran off to the continent with a married man. The narrator of the story stated that in doing this she showed great 'courage' and 'conviction' because it was against the mores of the Victorian era. The narrator...
Indeed, how does this relate to the non-preamble parts of constitutions I quoted?
The preamble is generally a statement of principle. By placing it in the constitution, at all, is important because it is saying 'these principles are based on these values' and in the cases I gave where the...
Which god? Zues, Appollo, Poseidon? I don't know...
I guess I had always assumed that Alexander was a pagan. Your 'evidence' to the contrary shows that Bury and Meiggs were wrong.
So you mean, based on the passage that Alexander the Great sumbitted to God, he was a Muslim. Not 'he was a...
I am seeking clarification on what you are asking. It is not an act of hostility so you don't need to suggest that it is. I don't understand what it is you are wanting to know. If this is a problem, then close the thread.
Someone can both be father of a nation and father of a son. The son can be part of that nation, as well, but holds a particular relationship as that of son, even though he is one of many people as well.
There is no contradiction as the concept of father has different meanings in...
What do you think the constitution is?
How would you say that a law that makes it compulsory that the head of state is of a particular religious faith (or excludes someone on the grounds of faith) is not part of the law?
This is a rather shifty way of putting it; 'in passing' would be a term you 'might' use only for those that have it in the preamble. Denmark for one, gaurantees that the monarch has to be of a particular faith; it is a day-to-day part of their nation
It doesn't need to rest on the Bible...
Good, neither has Australia. We've never even had a civil war or revolution war*. Might that mean we are a more 'stable' democracy? (that seems to be what you're suggesting)
*unrest, and revolts, yes.
Do they have to be 'theocracies'? I don't maintain that they have to be; as it seems your assertion (or rather the example of as you state of your founding fathers) is that a clear separation of state from church is something that needs be to gaurantee freedom.
The United Kingdom and Greece...
Has it worked?
Anyway, this is, as I believed to be the point which someone calls 'strawman'.
I have shown examples where church and state get along just fine.
There are of course examples where church and state don't mix well, of course. So the reasons for this 'corruption' may not be...
If you claim it is baseless, then you are saying my assumptions of it being non-fiction are wrong; therefore it is fiction. That is what you are saying. You say it again right now...
You also claimed something was anti-semetic. So, you're saying that my 'passion narative' is fictionless...
Actually yes it does. If someone is saying 'this will never work' all I need do is show one example.
And I've shown you that you can have a system where the inclusion of god is not exclusive to these freedoms. Thus, it is not 'strawman' as your colleague insinuates, because I know people who...