Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 15, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: As i already pointed out a state religion that is voluntary is [i]not much of a state religion .[/b] And considering the church does not seem to have any pragmatic power in Denmark . It's presence seems more cremonial then actual governing power . And again considering Denmark provides freedom of religion and by theory from religion which ultimately undermines a state religion . I again argue it's only a state religion in name not practice . Which might as well be a secular government .
Bold mine.
"Not much of a state religion" is still a state religion. You said yourself it's a state religion in name, though not in practice. I don't think the argument was about the practice of it, but rather it's existence. This needs to be clearly defined and agreed upon by both parties for this to even be a debate, let alone a "won" debate.
You guys are kind of arguing two different points. If we're talking about whether the people of the country are religious, you've got a point. If we're talking about whether the government is secular or not, Huggy has a point.
If you want to call it a debate, Huggy, you guys are going to need to set definitions of terms. This is all semantic bullshit.
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.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
February 15, 2018 at 3:26 pm (This post was last modified: February 15, 2018 at 3:28 pm by downbeatplumb.)
(February 14, 2018 at 6:59 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: [quote='Jörmungandr' pid='1701763' dateline='1518644012']
Having looked back on that thread, it appears the debate in question started with this post. In this post, you link to studies that show that the country of Denmark is one of the happiest in the world, and attempt to make some point about secularism not being linked to happiness in these top countries. Pandemonium in responding to your post about the happiest countries, specifically Panama and Denmark, stated, "I reiterate - countries that have secular institutions and secular structures of government not only tend to be happier, they tend also to be much more productive economically and more cohesive socially." It's not clear that he is here specifically claiming that Denmark in particular has a secular government, rather than that he was simply speaking in general about the lists you presented. Several pages later, you introduce the dubious claim that a state (meaning country) is not secular if its government is not secular. I went through the pages rather rapidly, but from what I could see, you kept pressuring people on the question of whether Denmark had a secular government or not, and your interlocutors continually refused to answer that question directly, generally inclining toward trying to direct the conversation back to the question of whether Denmark was a secular state (meaning country) or not. I didn't find any examples of anybody claiming that Denmark had a secular government, but my examination was rather cursory, so if you have an example of such, please provide it.
So, if my perusal of that thread is accurate, the claim under dispute was whether or not Denmark was a secular country or not. (You yourself say as much at several points in the discussion.) Whether you were or were not right on that point is debatable. Claiming victory on the main point of that discussion would then be completely improper. Instead, you are claiming that you won a victory based upon a question which you yourself independently introduced, and which, to the best that I can see, was never argued contrary-wise by any atheist. How you see that as some kind of a victory for you, and a shameful defeat for the participating atheists, is something of a mystery to me. The evidence appears to be that the "Denmark issue" is simply a case where your vanity led you to claim a victory based on your self appraisal of the matter, an appraisal which appears to be in contradiction to the actual facts of the matter. But, as I said, my examination of that thread was not completely thorough, so I'm open to being shown wrong. Simply provide a link to where one of the atheist debaters in that thread claimed that Denmark had a secular government, and I'll concede the point.
Here you go.
(January 6, 2015 at 8:36 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: And finally, no, not 'capiche' you pigeon. Your links don't marry up to the data presented by abaris just a couple of posts ago:
I reiterate - countries that have secular institutions and secular structures of government not only tend to be happier, they tend also to be much more productive economically and more cohesive socially.
(January 6, 2015 at 8:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Actually that is the exact link I posted, thank you very much
(January 6, 2015 at 8:52 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: And you ignored that all the top 10 states are secular.
Answer my question re: what you think secularism is (we all know you think secular = atheist but I want you to say it), and reply to the rebuttals, or GTFO.
*emphasis mine*
Pandæmonium clearly said that the top 10 STATES in that list were secular... a State is a government.
The top 10 nations in that list.
1. Denmark = not secular
2. Norway = ambiguous
3. Switzerland = ambiguous
4. Netherlands = secular
5. Sweden = secular
6. Canada = secular
7. Finland = ambiguous
8. Austria = secular
9. Iceland = not secular
10. Australia = secular
I used this site to determine which countries are which because some countries aren't clear, like Norway for example:
Quote:A constitutional amendment of May 21, 2012 designates the church as "Norway's people's church" (Norges Folkekirke), with a new provision that is almost a verbatim copy of the provision for the Danish state church (folkekirken) in the Constitution of Denmark; the Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske stressed that the reform meant that "the state church is retained." On 27 May 2016, Stortinget approved a new act to establish the Church of Norway as an independent legal entity rather than a branch of the civil service, and the law took effect on 1 January 2017. The church remains state funded.
Denmark just happened to be first on the list that was clearly not secular, therefore making Pandæmonium's claim of the top 10 States in that list being secular patently false.
All he had to do was correct his mistake, but he chose to double down, the rest is history...
(January 16, 2015 at 11:53 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?
Also according to YOU secularism "gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for them"
This link is also taken from your exact same post http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133 http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm
Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.
You're contradicting yourself dude.
I can't wait to hear your next excuse....
[/quote
]
Huggy, would you consider the UK to have a secular government?
I would say yes, and yet there is a church of England with unelected representatives in the house of lords.
Seems like a contradiction and yet it really isn't.
(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.
Quote:• Practically all citizens are automatically born as members of the “Folkekirke.”
Which i don't consider relevant. . Unless the Church actually can impose some manner of agenda over the governing body or the decision making process .Or have some binding legal obligation to it's members . It's cerimonial and no more relevant then if all citizens were automatically at birth subscribed to vogue .
Same goes if the government is not allowed to impose upon doctrines or beliefs of it's citizens and allows and legally protects beliefs and belief systems not bound the church/state authority . It's power over religion is nil or at least heavily restrained .
As i said this seems like secularism in all but name .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Any nation ruled by birthright is endemically religious. Id Est, a Monarchy.
Yeah, I am Republican, but not American Republican. I feel this has to be translated much alike American football, to real football. The one you use your feet in a ball instead of or hand on an egg.
February 15, 2018 at 3:49 pm (This post was last modified: February 15, 2018 at 4:12 pm by Amarok.)
(February 15, 2018 at 3:32 pm)Shell B Wrote:
(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.
If they sleep with 1000 other people . The couple never sees each other . Never acknowledge their relationship. Burned their marriage certificate as just a piece of paper . And none of the legal obligation of marriage are ever imposed or demanded of them regardless of their actions . It would indeed as far as i'm concerned it would be a marriage in name only . Same goes for Denmark's government in regards to its status as secular or not .
If on the other hand . They live together. Formally acknowledge their status as husband and wife . Made some form legally binding relationship contract by private or government means . Then yes they are indeed married. Same goes for Denmark's government it seems like it's gravitated to point were the church has no real practical power over the machinery of government . And the government has little hold over the religion institutions or religious beliefs of it's citizens .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
(February 15, 2018 at 3:44 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Any nation ruled by birthright is endemically religious. Id Est, a Monarchy.
Yeah, I am Republican, but not American Republican. I feel this has to be translated much alike American football, to real football. The one you use your feet in a ball instead of or hand on an egg.
I sometimes refer to games in a similar way.
Rugby/rugby league are eggball.
American football is either wimpy or armoured eggball.
Aussie rules is stupid eggball.
(February 15, 2018 at 3:44 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Any nation ruled by birthright is endemically religious. Id Est, a Monarchy.
Yeah, I am Republican, but not American Republican. I feel this has to be translated much alike American football, to real football. The one you use your feet in a ball instead of or hand on an egg.
I sometimes refer to games in a similar way.
Rugby/rugby league are eggball.
American football is either wimpy or armoured eggball.
Aussie rules is stupid eggball.
I was actually quite good at rugby. Ah, the feel of crunching living bone, just about brings a tear to my eye. I was better at it than football. I have big feet, hard to foot-ball with them.
February 15, 2018 at 4:09 pm (This post was last modified: February 15, 2018 at 4:12 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(February 15, 2018 at 3:50 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:
(February 15, 2018 at 3:44 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Any nation ruled by birthright is endemically religious. Id Est, a Monarchy.
Yeah, I am Republican, but not American Republican. I feel this has to be translated much alike American football, to real football. The one you use your feet in a ball instead of or hand on an egg.
I sometimes refer to games in a similar way.
Rugby/rugby league are eggball. American football is either wimpy or armoured eggball.
Aussie rules is stupid eggball.
*emphasis mine*
Wimpy? Lol, ok. American football didn't start off armored, it's there for good reason, an NFL hit is the equivalent of a car crash... try taking 60+ of those per game.
