(January 6, 2015 at 12:23 am)Huggy74 Wrote: It is petty, in what way does that monument in affect you?

Other than overtly shitting on the constitution? You're right, what could possibly go wrong?

Tell me you're European this instant. Fucking lie to me if you have to.

(January 3, 2015 at 10:58 am)Tonus Wrote: Mind you, I can recall people lamenting the state of the world for as long as I've been alive, and I know that my parents and their parents heard the same. We tend to filter the past through a very different lens than we use to observe the present and guess at the future. So it may simply be natural to worry that things are getting worse and that there is no end in sight because no one cares enough to change it.

A little book that backs up your point. It's well worth reading, if for no other reason than because it is amusing: The Good Old Days They Were Terrible

(January 5, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: 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.

I clearly stated that "Societies that are free to live how they please and treated fairly (no injustice/corruption) are the happiest." and "a societies happiness had nothing to do with secularism vs religion, but freedom of choice.

Therefore the concept is simple, it's not about secularism at all, in which you keep trying to beat that dead horse. Secularism is not even one of the criteria used to determine a societies happiness.

Let's examine the happiest countries shall we.

I'll present two different lists
Article from May 21, 2014
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169322/people...tions.aspx#

Article from September 11, 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel...untry.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Paraguay

Quote:Paraguay and Panama top the first list
The religious identities of the people of Paraguay, or Religion in Paraguay for short, have since national independence been oriented towards the Christian faith, and specifically the Roman Catholic Church. In the most recent census (2002), Paraguayans of all ages 10 and older had their religious identities enumerated, and 89.6% were classified as Catholics.

Self-identification of Paraguayans with no established religion is quite low by worldwide standards, with only 1.14% of respondents enumerated as possessing no religious identity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Panama

Quote:The government of Panama does not collect statistics on the religious affiliation of citizens, but various sources estimate that 75 to 85 percent of the population identifies itself as Roman Catholic and 15 to 25 percent as evangelical Christian.[2] The Bahá'í Faith community of Panama is estimated at 2.00% of the national population, or about 60,000[3] including about 10% of the Guaymí population;[4] the Bahá'ís maintain one of the world's eight Baha'i Houses of Worship in Panama

As you can see, in both of these countries the religious population is greater than 98%, by contrast in Denmark, only 28% of the population believe in God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Quote:According to the SKYE most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[2] 28% of Danish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", 47% responded that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 24% responded that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". Another poll, carried out in 2008, found that 25% of Danes believe Jesus is the son of God, and 18% believe he is the saviour of the world.[3] While a vast majority of Danes are technically agnostic or atheist, few choose to identify as such. It is speculated that this is because religion is such a non-issue that not believing in it does not require a specific label. "At the same time, they were “often disinclined or hesitant to talk with me about religion,” Mr. Zuckerman reported, “and even once they agreed to do so, they usually had very little to say on the matter

What's even more interesting is that the United Arab Emirates makes top 15 in both lists yet they have freaking sharia law......

So I say once again, you equating secularism with happiness is utter nonsense.

Are you ill? I mean, as in mentally deficient in some way that you continually misconstrue what people are saying to you.

Secularism is not the antithesis to religion. How can I put this in a term you will understand? A diagram? Phonetics?

Atheism =/= secularism. A large proportion of theists/atheists in a population is Irrelevant to whether that state is secular.

IVE NEVER SAID that secularism is responsible for the happiness of a given state's happiness, only that in general state's with secular structures have a trend of being 'more happy' and more productive socially and economically.

It's called a correlation. Don't look it up in a dictionary incase your set yourself on fire.

Repeat after me - secularism has nothing to do with atheism. Try it. Secularism is the GUARANTEE of religious freedom by ensuring the state does not enforce one (non) religion over another.

Just say it out loud until you understand that simple concept and before posting on this thread again. I mean FUCK! What the fuck is wrong with you?

.....FUCK.

Right. You could have a country where there are 100 different religions, and everyone adheres to one of those religions, and no atheists. And you could still form a secular government from those people.

This should be fairly obvious anyway from the fact that the president of the USA has been christian as far back as anyone can remember, yet the government is secular.

Is Obama really christian? I would totally understand (but not advocate) saying you are even if you aren't, to become electable. I know that atheists can in theory be elected, and I feel that in say 60 years there could be an atheist pres in the nut house. It's sad to consider some people might be lying.

May I just note, that Huggys list of happiest countries doesn|t conform with the World happiness Report 2014. According to this, the happiest are the secular Scandinavians, followed by the most secular central European nations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel...untry.html

(January 6, 2015 at 8:09 am)robvalue Wrote: Right. You could have a country where there are 100 different religions, and everyone adheres to one of those religions, and no atheists. And you could still form a secular government from those people.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

Take Turkey, a demographically Muslim state, yet it's secular. Not many atheists in Turkey I would think.

I don't actually know if our (English) government is technically secular by law, or whether it has just evolved into being so. Anyone know that?

(January 6, 2015 at 8:15 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Take Turkey, a demographically Muslim state, yet it's secular. Not many atheists in Turkey I would think.

Still secular I would say. If Erdogan has his way, Atatürks reforms will be history at some stage in the not so far future.

The UK constitution is not entrenched and not codified - it's an evolutionary convention if you want the political spiel.

It is de Jure Anglican but de facto secular, though not as secular as I would like (hegemony of the Anglican church on state affairs, lords spiritual, faith schools etc).

In comparison to our more enlightened brothers and sisters on the continent we are failing in the secular front.