WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No, I must congratulate you sir for having the ability to convolute a very simple concept.

you seem to think I'm making a case for a religious society, which I'm not.

Let's take a road for example.

A road is designed with gutters on the left and right for the trash to wash into. It is never good to be far left or far right of any issue it's best to remain in the center.
This applies to pretty much anything whether it be politics or religion.

It's ok to be conservative about somethings, and liberal about others. Taking one side OR the other is just nonsense.

that being said, a totally religious society is not the answer, neither is an atheist society, but one that gives the people freedom to choose.

So the point I was making was a societies happiness had nothing to do with secularism vs religion, but freedom of choice.

My point

Esquilax wasn't saying anything convoluted, he was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

Secularism is not the antithesis to 'religion'. Secularism is not atheism.

Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.

Tell us what your definition of secularism is. Where do you think it came from and what do you think it seeks to achieve?

---

Now, how about replying to the rebuttals of your initial erroneous reply?

He's not able to graps the concept without thinking secularism=atheism=communism.

That's what I fear.