• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Just what we need - just what faith needs

Pah

Uber all member
Melody said:
His view was that by actively removing any mention of God from any public arena, the government was actually enforcing a human secularism...which he considered just as much a religion.

As for discussing with my professor. I would guess he's long since retiredn;-).
Well, his premise is mistaken. A religion, defined by constutional law, is one that says it is, has a modicum of organization and, sad to say, I've forgotten the third essential characteristic. Secularism has neither of those two but just the first is sufficent to deny his premise.

But I would be glad to debate the question with anyone.
 

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD
TranceAm said:
I have an empty room.. There is nothing in it. Do I believe it is empty, or is it empty?
A person comes in and states, I believe that there could be a table in the corner?

Is my claim that the room is empty now a belief?
TranceAm, you are indeed a master of double-talk and nonsense.:rolleyes:
 

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD
TranceAm said:
retrorich said:
TransAm, you are indeed a master of double-talk and nonsense.:rolleyes:

That is a nice claim and label, but in itself doesn't answer the question to a simple analog.

Let me try again :

I have an empty room.. There no furniture in it.
Do I believe it is empty, or is it empty?
A person comes in and states, "I believe that there could be a table" in the corner of what you claim to be an empty room.

Has my claim that the room is empty now become a belief?

A simple straight forward "yes" or "no" are sufficient.

Ever read that story about the person that stated that "The emperor has no clothes"?
Rave on, dude! And why are you still using an analog, when digital is all the rage? :biglaugh:

(Please excuse my misspelling of your username in my previous thread. I have corrected that.)
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
TranceAm said:
Melody said:
His view was that by actively removing any mention of God from any public arena, the government was actually enforcing a human secularism...which he considered just as much a religion.

I have an empty room.. There is nothing in it. Do I believe it is empty, or is it empty?
A person comes in and states, I believe that there could be a table in the corner?

Is my claim that the room is empty now a belief?
I'm am just as confused by Rich,Tranceam; could you explain the point you are trying to make - for someone who is a little slow on the uptake:)?
 

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD
michel said:
I'm am just as confused by Rich,Tranceam; could you explain the point you are trying to make - for someone who is a little slow on the uptake:)?
Michel: Did you mean "as confused AS Rich"?

Don't put yourself down, my friend, you are most certainly NOT slow on the uptake. I have chatted with you extensively and find you to be a highly intelligent person. In the case of TranceAm's convoluted "logic," the shortcoming is in the transmitter, not in the receiver. :)

Frubals to you!

[EDIT] Sorry! The Frubals God won't let me give you frubals at this time. Says I need to spread some Karma around. :eek: Catch you later.
 

Feathers in Hair

World's Tallest Hobbit
How 'bout this for a point?

Not everyone knows the Emperor's New Clothes story. Also, the only one that realized the emperor was bare-fanny nekkid was a kid.
 

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD
FeathersinHair said:
How 'bout this for a point?

Not everyone knows the Emperor's New Clothes story. Also, the only one that realized the emperor was bare-fanny nekkid was a kid.
Correct, Feathers! And what do a naked emperor and an "empty" room that may or may not contain a table :rolleyes: have to do with the topic of this thread? ...

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants her House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants her party to develop a faith agenda for 2006 to try to reconnect with religious-minded Americans voters.

Pelosi has tapped U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., to lead the effort to recapture faith-based voters who, exit polls indicate, constituted a substantial bloc of votes in the 2004 U.S. elections.
If it is wrong for Republicans to "play" on faith for political purposes, it is wrong for Democrats to do likewise.
 

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD
TranceAm said:
If it is going to be like this in the future, I don't think I will waste much time on this forum..

Time to to precious so to speak, to be waisted among idiots.
TranceAm:

I notice you said "idiots" (plural). It's nice to know I am not the only idiot in this forum. :biglaugh:
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
pah said:
Well, his premise is mistaken. A religion, defined by constutional law, is one that says it is, has a modicum of organization and, sad to say, I've forgotten the third essential characteristic. Secularism has neither of those two but just the first is sufficent to deny his premise.

But I would be glad to debate the question with anyone.
Bob...in your opinion he's mistaken. When I had this professor, he was at the end of a long career which included quite a number of years as a practicing attorney, both defense and prosecutorial. He didn't just live in an ivory tower all of his life. He's one of the few atheists I've met who believed that human secularism was a religion and I think he'd argue quite successfully that it is very much organized. If it wasn't, our schools would not be teaching creationism as if it is fact and the obliteration of everything that remotely hints of "God" would not be as rampant as it is.
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
Oh...and for the record....I also do not want to live in a theocracy but it seems there's a vast difference between a theocracy and obliterating all mention of God. I hear you say it's unconstitutional and yet it all seems to come down to what your perception of "separation of church and state" is.

I do not believe our founders, based on their own beliefs and lives, ever intended God to be removed. They merely did not want the state to mandate a religion (such as Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) Sorry, it's been too long since my college days but I do remember reading (an incredible amount of reading!) in one of my political science classes that many of the signers thought that prayer and bible study should be a part of the public school curriculum.

My opinion only, based on my own readings, is that the founders would probably have supported your right to not believe, but I don't think they would have obliterated God to support that right.
 

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD
Melody said:
My opinion only, based on my own readings, is that the founders would probably have supported your right to not believe, but I don't think they would have obliterated God to support that right.
I see no reason to obliterate God. He just should not be a controlling factor in government.
 

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD
Performance Park said:
We can remove His name, His Word, His Ways, etc., but we cannot remove His Control and Authority.
A nonexistent God has no control or authority. What offends me is the way humans use His ALLEGED name, words and ways in an attempt to control other humans.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Not what he means at all...

God allows any government to exist. Whether it is America or Iran, nations rise and fall at God's command. Sometimes the nation who conquers is righteous, but many times it is not.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
NetDoc said:
God allows any government to exist. Whether it is America or Iran, nations rise and fall at God's command. Sometimes the nation who conquers is righteous, but many times it is not.

God, it follows, is a bit of a tosser then.
 

Pah

Uber all member
NetDoc said:
.... Whether it is America or Iran, nations rise and fall at God's command. Sometimes the nation who conquers is righteous, but many times it is not.
I'm sorry Doc, I don't see the Pope with any armies let alone God. You wouldn't be saying that Poland fell first to Hitler and then Stalin at God's command - or would you?

I wonder what your take is on the Irish problem and the lose of the Christian Bosnia to a conglomuration of Christians and Muslims.

I can't even see God commanding the United States or France
 
Top