WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Post 208. Cheers dipshit.

Also, the staff are actively awaiting your report which I have excused myself from commenting on. Do yourself a favour, don't embarrass yourself more; report me for this infraction.

[Mister Agenda]

'Communism is secularism taken to the extreme.'

What is it about that quote don't you understand?

Its idiocy. Communism isn't any kind of secularism, it's an economic system (and not a very good one in my opinion).

Are you saying it's impossible to go overboard with secularism? elaborate a little.

It's a little hard to envision a scenario where a government would be TOO neutral in matters of religion. Certainly a communist state engaging in religious oppression would not be an example of it.

Keep in mind, you've already shown you have no clue what secularism is, seeing how you still believe Denmark is secular.

It seems pretty clear that you're the only one here who doesn't understand what it means. Denmark is an interesting case of a country that both supports a state religion and whose constitution guarantees freedom of worship and religion and doesn't require anyone to pay taxes to support someone else's religion. It could be more secular, but not a LOT more secular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.

As you can see, there are different manifestations of secularism, the part in bold is the communist approach.

The part in bold says nothing about suppressing religion. You can go to church all day and as long as I don't have to listen to it, religious rule and teachings are not being opposed on me. It doesn't say there can't be religoius rules and teachings, just that I can't be subjected to them.

[Huggy Bear]

Post 208. Cheers dipshit.

Also, the staff are actively awaiting your report which I have excused myself from commenting on. Do yourself a favour, don't embarrass yourself more; report me for this infraction.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846333

Nah...I'm too lazy to flip back a few pages~

... I'd rather redefine "back-pedal" so that it has a meaning amenable to my point.

And what does this explain exactly?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Wasting your time, MA. Huggy is the epitome of a brick wall when it comes to learning things. Folks explained this all to him about 20 pages back and he's still not got it. Time to write him off.

[Huggy Bear]

Its idiocy. Communism isn't any kind of secularism, it's an economic system (and not a very good one in my opinion).

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

The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom from "religious and anti-religious propaganda".

It's a little hard to envision a scenario where a government would be TOO neutral in matters of religion. Certainly a communist state engaging in religious oppression would not be an example of it.

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

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.[Notes 1] Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.

As you can clearly see, there are more than just one manifestation of secularism.
not to mention of course the transition of Russia to secularism would be seen as oppression since the country was Russian orthodox, but in a link from wiki (below) it states that most organized religions were not outlawed.

It seems pretty clear that you're the only one here who doesn't understand what it means. Denmark is an interesting case of a country that both supports a state religion and whose constitution guarantees freedom of worship and religion and doesn't require anyone to pay taxes to support someone else's religion. It could be more secular, but not a LOT more secular.

this is not even up for discussion, having a state sanctioned church, is by definition NOT secular.

The part in bold says nothing about suppressing religion. You can go to church all day and as long as I don't have to listen to it, religious rule and teachings are not being opposed on me. It doesn't say there can't be religoius rules and teachings, just that I can't be subjected to them.

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

the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

[Cyberman]

Huggy, you want me to report him for you, seeing as you're not going to?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Do it Stim.

Someone's gotta have the balls to do it, and it ain't sopply bollocks here.

[Mister Agenda]

Its idiocy. Communism isn't any kind of secularism, it's an economic system (and not a very good one in my opinion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church
The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom from "religious and anti-religious propaganda".

And the idiocy of countering my contention that the Stalinist government was not secular with an example of them being anti-secular did not occur to you?

It's a little hard to envision a scenario where a government would be TOO neutral in matters of religion. Certainly a communist state engaging in religious oppression would not be an example of it.

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

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.[Notes 1] Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.

As you can clearly see, there are more than just one manifestation of secularism.
not to mention of course the transition of Russia to secularism would be seen as oppression since the country was Russian orthodox, but in a link from wiki (below) it states that most organized religions were not outlawed.

Yes, we all know you found one line on the internet somewhere in the world that you think supports a definition of secularism that will let you apply it to state oppression of religious freedom, but it's only your profound lack of intellectual integrity that let's you turn 'from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people' into 'see, secular governments shut down churches!' Yes, to the extent a secular government imposes religious practices on its people, it's not being secular; but where you're getting communists preventing people from practicing their religion being secularism is your ass.

It seems pretty clear that you're the only one here who doesn't understand what it means. Denmark is an interesting case of a country that both supports a state religion and whose constitution guarantees freedom of worship and religion and doesn't require anyone to pay taxes to support someone else's religion. It could be more secular, but not a LOT more secular.

this is not even up for discussion, having a state sanctioned church, is by definition NOT secular.

No shit, Sherlock. 'Secular' is not a binary condition, either on or off. It's a continuum, and the side of the middle Denmark is on is the secular side. Paraguay is a religious country and a secular nation. Denmark is a (somewhat) religious nation and a secular country. You don't get to put Denmark on the 'theocracy side' of the middle because it's got one non-secular provision in its constitution.

The part in bold says nothing about suppressing religion. You can go to church all day and as long as I don't have to listen to it, religious rule and teachings are not being opposed on me. It doesn't say there can't be religoius rules and teachings, just that I can't be subjected to them.

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

the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

And yet again, you think it's some kind of counter to my point that Russia wasn't secular to point out them doing anti-secular things. Or that may be what you're pretending to think, I'm not really sure where the line between stupid and dishonest is drawn with you.

[Huggy Bear]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church
The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom from "religious and anti-religious propaganda".

And the idiocy of countering my contention that the Stalinist government was not secular with an example of them being anti-secular did not occur to you?

The nerve to call someone an idiot when we were talking about COMMUNISM not STALIN.

Its idiocy. Communism isn't any kind of secularism, it's an economic system (and not a very good one in my opinion).

Stalin did not invent communism, the date above is referring to 1917, Stalin didn't come into power until 1924.

Also explain how, "separation of church and state" and "freedom from religious and anti-religious (read atheist) propaganda" isn't secular?

Yes, we all know you found one line on the internet somewhere in the world that you think supports a definition of secularism that will let you apply it to state oppression of religious freedom, but it's only your profound lack of intellectual integrity that let's you turn 'from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people' into 'see, secular governments shut down churches!' Yes, to the extent a secular government imposes religious practices on its people, it's not being secular; but where you're getting communists preventing people from practicing their religion being secularism is your ass.

So secularism is black and white...Gotcha!

No shit, Sherlock. 'Secular' is not a binary condition, either on or off. It's a continuum, and the side of the middle Denmark is on is the secular side. Paraguay is a religious country and a secular nation. Denmark is a (somewhat) religious nation and a secular country. You don't get to put Denmark on the 'theocracy side' of the middle because it's got one non-secular provision in its constitution.

So secularism isn't black and white... wait... what? Can't have it both ways.

And yet again, you think it's some kind of counter to my point that Russia wasn't secular to point out them doing anti-secular things. Or that may be what you're pretending to think, I'm not really sure where the line between stupid and dishonest is drawn with you.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. If it's your claim that Russia wasn't secular because it engaged in anti-secular activity, then you cant claim that Denmark is secular when it clearly engages in anti-secular activity. Which is it?

(By the way, just for clarification, I emboldened parts of your quotes.)

[The Valkyrie]

It seems that the time is ripe for opinion and lies to replace truth and morality.

And now that God has been ceremoniously and conveniently stripped from society... EVERYTHING will be based on public opinion. The lines will be blurred; and goal posts with wheels on what was once a moral foundation. ONE, that held all else to a higher standard.

Even atheists must agree, that the society as we are now morphing into is due to a lack of instilled morality. I've heard here, that empathy is all that one needs to build a moral bases..... I ask, where do you find that in the general public? Who finds empathy, and where? A video game, or sniper movie? Perhaps an evening of s&m porn will make one empathetic? No, there is no tap for empathy. We hope some parent, somewhere is teaching their child how to empathize.... and not to walk by a bleeding person in the street who may be our child!

Where will ALL the good people come from? Per society (and atheist) wishes, God and His people will diminish. But then, Allah and his cohorts are their replacement! A New World Order needs a new minor annoyance.... Oui? Do you not find it strange that our society is now embracing almost everything that is counter to our sense of natural order? Its actually, mind boggling! And at a pace that is making heads spin! Or roll as Allah and our govt would have it!

And the NWO will of course be how many people you have on your side of the street! And how sharp your sword is. So stock up on vittles and candles. And get ready for a bumpy ride. Its not gonna get better. I'm usually an optimist. Not lately. I'll probably be one of the first to go anyway! I don't take to change very well.

Ahhhhhhh.


I so MISSED crazy town.