WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

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.

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?

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]'.

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

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?