(January 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Increased secularism isn't state atheism...

My point is, if you're going to make a case against religion by stating

"the most secular, least religious societies also tend to be some of the most prosperous financially and socially, and also the happiest."

then look at the Societies/governments that removed religion completely, and you would see that they tended to be hellholes , making that statement utter nonsense.

Societies that are free to live how they please and treated fairly (no injustice/corruption) are the happiest.

By that reasoning, we should examine religion under the light of it being imposed by the State, and guess what those countries are like.

How hard do we have to agree with you that state-imposed atheism is a bad idea for you to remove the stick from your ass?

---

(January 3, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So the point I was making was a societies happiness had nothing to do with secularism vs religion, but freedom of choice.

My point

Except that the communist countries you cited weren't secular. Political secularism is government neutrality toward religion, and that includes not oppressing it as much as it includes not promoting it.

The purpose of secularism is to keep the government from infringing on people's religious freedom of choice.

(January 5, 2015 at 4:34 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(January 4, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I like how you assume modern roads, roads have existed for thousands of years.

It's called an analogy, but, please go ahead and explain how roads work.

In your opnion, how similar or not similar is this to your lack of understanding of what secularism is?

How about we acknowledge your inability to understand a very simple concept, this is the third time I'm repeating myself.

Secularism as you put it, may be neutral or "indifferent" to religion by definition but not in practice. For instance, the first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, yet we have children being disciplined for exercising their right.
Boy Suspended from School For Reading Bible During Recess
Student suspended for saying ‘bless you’ at school

Not to mention the law in France that bans wearing religious symbols in schools.
French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools
Being "neutral" would mean banning all symbols...

None of the above acts affect government policy in any way, proving there is a clear agenda (if it's not an atheist agenda, then who?) against the public exercise of religion.
How is this being neutral or "indifferent" towards religion?

(January 5, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 4:34 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: In your opnion, how similar or not similar is this to your lack of understanding of what secularism is?

How about we acknowledge your inability to understand a very simple concept, this is the third time I'm repeating myself.

Secularism as you put it, may be neutral or "indifferent" to religion by definition but not in practice. For instance, the first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, yet we have children being disciplined for exercising their right.
Boy Suspended from School For Reading Bible During Recess
Student suspended for saying ‘bless you’ at school

Not to mention the law in France that bans wearing religious symbols in schools.
French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools
Being "neutral" would mean banning all symbols...

None of the above acts affect government policy in any way, proving there is a clear agenda (if it's not an atheist agenda, then who?) against the public exercise of religion.
How is this being neutral or "indifferent" towards religion?

They have those laws to keep people fighting over which religion is true if it wasn't banned on a constant basis children would start fighting to the death over my religion is better than yours or my god is stronger than yours.

(January 5, 2015 at 12:01 pm)dyresand Wrote: I said this already to him Stalin killed for political reasons. The only real reason why Stalin killed people is he was a very paranoid person. But still why does Huggy think there is a link between atheism and communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%...st_atheism

Quote:Marxist–Leninist atheism (Russian: Марксистско-ленинский атеизм) is a part of the wider Marxist–Leninist philosophy (the type of Marxist philosophy found in the Soviet Union), which rejects religion and advocates a materialist understanding of nature. Marxism-Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism. Marxist-Leninist atheism has its roots in the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin.

Yep, we're all out to get you. We own the governments and they pursue our agenda. It won't be long until we're pushing you into secular ovens or shipping you off to the godless gulag. As we all know, secularism is just a rebranded version of Stalinism.

You guys have been cracking me up today The laughter is good for me.

(January 5, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 12:01 pm)dyresand Wrote: I said this already to him Stalin killed for political reasons. The only real reason why Stalin killed people is he was a very paranoid person. But still why does Huggy think there is a link between atheism and communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%...st_atheism

Quote:Marxist–Leninist atheism (Russian: Марксистско-ленинский атеизм) is a part of the wider Marxist–Leninist philosophy (the type of Marxist philosophy found in the Soviet Union), which rejects religion and advocates a materialist understanding of nature. Marxism-Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism. Marxist-Leninist atheism has its roots in the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin.

Learn your history....

(January 5, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 4:34 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: In your opnion, how similar or not similar is this to your lack of understanding of what secularism is?

How about we acknowledge your inability to understand a very simple concept, this is the third time I'm repeating myself.

Secularism isn't simple. The core principles are simple, but the implementation of secularism is contextual and not defined to the extent that it's universal. Eg a de facto secular system in the UK is wildly different to secular structures in France.

Also, you haven't given us ANY indication you know anything abouts secularism at all. So to say you're repeating yourself on this subject means you're surely having a laugh right? I think it's pretty clear that you're not in a position to lecture me on a subject I know a lot more about than you do, doubly so when, as made demonstrably clear through your last posts and this one, you haves no clue what secularism even is.

But let's dissect more of your idiocy shall we? Always fun! Maybe you'll actually reply to the rebuttals this time instead of cherry picking one thing you think you might know a little bit about.

(January 5, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Secularism as you put it, may be neutral or "indifferent" to religion by definition but not in practice.

Never said that, and that's not what secularism is.

Secularism is the establishment of pillars of neutrality towards religion in the public sphere. It is the opening up of the public sphere to equality of all religions and indeed non-religions. It doesn't/shouldn't stop people expressing their religion in the public sphere. What it does prevent is people using their religion as a justification as to why others should follow their religion, or indeed why others shouldn't follow theirs. It prevents the state from enforcing one particular religion at The expense of others, and it prevents the state from effectively legislating against the religions of others by securing the freedom of people to be and to declare their [non] religiousness.

(January 5, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: For instance, the first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, yet we have children being disciplined for exercising their right.
Boy Suspended from School For Reading Bible During Recess
Student suspended for saying ‘bless you’ at school

I don't know enough about those cases to comment.

EDIT: See Esquilax's demolition of these 'sources' which turn out to be fabrications

Some thoughts, however. You cite fox news, so until I get a better source I'm going to reject that second story immediately unless there's something further to corroborate.

As above, secularism is open to the same sort of misapplications as any other political structure. If children want to say 'God bless you' to people, they should be allowed that right. What cant happen is teachers saying 'God bless you' as an employee of the state. Or rather they can, but then they'd have to also remind students or whoever that there are a hundreds of thousands of other gods that also wish to ensured that the person is excused for sneezing. Including Thor, and including my own personal dragon God called Barry.

The 1st amendment free exercise clause reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religious beliefs , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ” (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause)

Tell me, what do you object to here? Isn't this freedom in its most basic sense? Or is it that you object to the fact that I can start a religion, legally in the US, that has as it's basic tenant/belief that your God is an asshole or murders and rapes little children?

You can't misrepresent and invisible being after all, so it's fair game, as enshrined in the constitution. What is your objection?

(January 5, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not to mention the law in France that bans wearing religious symbols in schools.
French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools
Being "neutral" would mean banning all symbols...

FALSE.

This is a false equivocation. France bans religious symbolism in public buildings, not just schools but also in courts, government buildings etc. Turkey also does this (or used to at least) in much a similar fashion. 'Banning all symbols' is irrelevent to secular pillars in France because not all symbols are religious, are they? If The French government allowed a cross to be displayed in it's court it would be giving a message that it, as the legitimate law making body of France, endorses (a version of) Christianity at the expense of every other religion that doesn't have their religious symbol on display.

Secularism is concnered with equality of religious expression. As no religious symbols are allowed in public buildings, there is equality.

It is not preventing people from being religious. It is not preventing people for saying 'I am a [whatever]'.

(January 5, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: None of the above acts affect government policy in any way, proving there is a clear agenda (if it's not an atheist agenda, then who?) against the public exercise of religion.
How is this being neutral or "indifferent" towards religion?

Utter shit, and you know it.

First off, whilst it might be true that all atheists are secular, not all secularists are atheists. As ive repeatedly iterated to you, secularism was a religious invention in the 17th century. France, whilst adopting the trend of the declining mainstream religiousness, still has a large number of Christians and other religious organisations that operate within it (impossible to say how many owing to lack of census data in France).

Many of their presidents have been religious (eg. Sarcozy is a catholic, as was Chriac, as was fucking De Gaulle for gods sake). Yet support for secularism in France is still high, including from the largest religious organisation in france: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Fren..._the_State

Quote:Such was the extent of the Church's coming to peace with the law, in 2005 for its 100th anniversary the Catholic Church in France supported not amending the law, though it did not wish to "idealize it". It also supported the fact that the 1905 law provided for State provision of chaplains in "to ensure the free exercise of religion in public institutions such as schools, colleges, schools, hospitals, asylums and prisons "(law of December 9, 1905. 2)." and that the Church believes "All this considered, for our purposes, we do not think we should change the law of 1905...Therefore, it seems wise not to touch this balance by which was made possible by the easing of our country today."

Tell us again about this atheist agenda? Or perhaps you were, you knows, talking out of your arse again?

There's a philosophy I go by. If I don't know about a subject I shutup until I learn from those that do and are able to give a valid opinion based on evidence for myself. Perhaps you'd like to try it sometime?

(January 5, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 12:01 pm)dyresand Wrote: I said this already to him Stalin killed for political reasons. The only real reason why Stalin killed people is he was a very paranoid person. But still why does Huggy think there is a link between atheism and communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%...st_atheism

Quote:Marxist–Leninist atheism (Russian: Марксистско-ленинский атеизм) is a part of the wider Marxist–Leninist philosophy (the type of Marxist philosophy found in the Soviet Union), which rejects religion and advocates a materialist understanding of nature. Marxism-Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism. Marxist-Leninist atheism has its roots in the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin.

That's a far cry from ensconcing it into law as a matter of public policy, which the Soviets never did.

From their 1936 Constitution:

Quote:ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russ...ons04.html

Now, in Stalinist Russia, where rule by fiat was the word of the day, such guarantees probably weren't worth much. But Solzhenitsyn, who spent eight years in the GULag system in three different camps as well as a sharashka, mentions only the Anabaptists as victims singled out for their religion.

That's what the actual french law says:

Quote:
Article 1: 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.
Le règlement intérieur rappelle que la mise en oeuvre d'une procédure disciplinaire est précédée d'un dialogue avec l'élève. »

It says, that pupils are forbidden to ostensibly wear religious symbols. It also says, before any disciplinary action is taken, there should be a dialogue with the pupil in question.

I fail to see what's detestable about this law, since it only says, keep your religion at home. Schools are places of education and not of religious practices. Any religious practices by any religion.

Also, this is how Laicité is defined in France.

Quote: French political leaders, though not by any means prohibited from making religious remarks, mostly refrain from it. Religious considerations are generally considered incompatible with reasoned political debate. Political leaders may openly practice their religion but they are expected to differentiate their religious beliefs from their political arguments. Christine Boutin, who openly argued on religious grounds against a legal domestic partnership available regardless of the sex of the partners, was quickly marginalized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

In short, again - keep your religion at home and be neutral in considering what's best for the nation. I see nothing wrong with that.