(February 15, 2018 at 3:26 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: I disagree . Even if on paper you have a state sanctioned religion . If has no power or real everyday influence or simply cerimonial . Is voluntary and prevents the state from imposing it's religious tenets . And a large sawft of populous do not embrace said religion . The that secularism in all but name.
Even if I agree with all that, you said it yourself, "it's secular in all but name." Well, it's not named secular. Therefore, you can't call it secular. That's like saying a couple is married in practice, so they're married in all but name, so they're married. No, they're not married. What you're debating is the name–what it is called. If someone redefined the terms of the debate and said, let's argue about the practice of the people, not the term by which we call a nation with a state-sanctioned church, then this would be the debate to have.
A quick nudge of the goalpost changes much in these things. So fucking many debates I've had on this forum all boil down to two people not having the same conversation.
