How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

[Orangedogsrule]

One cannot understand secularism without knowing it sprang from rejection of state religion and is opposed to all religion; even though those who espouse secularism,...secular humanism,...Humanism, claim tolerance, the ultimate goal is the removal of all religious reference in the state and the eradication of religious thought leading to an atheistic populace. Much as The old USSR "communism" and The People's Republic of China espouse.

Secular humanism, or more simply Humanism, specifically looks to replace religious thought with science and, as they call it, "rational thinking", as they have rejected faith in the supernatural as irrational.

Online Etymology Dictionary

secular (adj.) Look up secular at Dictionary.com
c. 1300, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state,"

From Old French seculer (Modern French séculier), from Late Latin saecularis "worldly, secular, pertaining to a generation or age," from Latin saecularis "of an age, occurring once in an age," from saeculum "age, span of time, generation."

Also, "saecularis" the pertaining to a worldly age or span of time within the world, as opposed to time with regard to the spiritual world of the gods, or later, God. Worldly things as opposed to otherworldly.

Governance of the people (the state) without a basis in religiosity, but "tolerating as required" religion in public.

Sadly, one of the links between secularism and religion is secularism's growing ill regard bordering on, and often crossing into, enmity toward those of faith. Which will push for no religiosity in public, then none at all, even in private. The prevalance of Secularity is the goal.

So much for this. Bye.

 

[PKT_VOL]

One cannot understand secularism without knowing it sprang from rejection of state religion and is opposed to all religion; even though those who espouse secularism,...secular humanism,...Humanism, claim tolerance, the ultimate goal is the removal of all religious reference in the state and the eradication of religious thought leading to an atheistic populace. Much as The old USSR "communism" and The People's Republic of China espouse.

Secular humanism, or more simply Humanism, specifically looks to replace religious thought with science and, as they call it, "rational thinking", as they have rejected faith in the supernatural as irrational.

Online Etymology Dictionary

secular (adj.) Look up secular at Dictionary.com
c. 1300, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state,"

From Old French seculer (Modern French séculier), from Late Latin saecularis "worldly, secular, pertaining to a generation or age," from Latin saecularis "of an age, occurring once in an age," from saeculum "age, span of time, generation."

Also, "saecularis" the pertaining to a worldly age or span of time within the world, as opposed to time with regard to the spiritual world of the gods, or later, God. Worldly things as opposed to otherworldly.

Governance of the people (the state) without a basis in religiosity, but "tolerating as required" religion in public.

Sadly, one of the links between secularism and religion is secularism's growing ill regard bordering on, and often crossing into, enmity toward those of faith. Which will push for no religiosity in public, then none at all, even in private. The prevalance of Secularity is the goal.

So much for this. Bye.

Always interesting for someone to cling onto etymology in a modern conversation. In modern American political discourse (mind you, you find yourself in a modern American political forum), secularism is the eschewment of religion or religious doctrine via force. What is the vehicle of force in the US/modern world? Government.

Secularism and religiousness are not mutually exclusive. One can be both religious AND secular. Many are.

One is a political philosophy (given a vehicle of force) while the other is a metaphysical belief system. They are totally separate concepts.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Always interesting for someone to cling onto etymology in a modern conversation. In modern American political discourse (mind you, you find yourself in a modern American political forum), secularism is the eschewment of religion or religious doctrine via force. What is the vehicle of force in the US/modern world? Government.

Secularism and religiousness are not mutually exclusive. One can be both religious AND secular. Many are.

One is a political philosophy (given a vehicle of force) while the other is a metaphysical belief system. They are totally separate concepts.

You can continue to rattle on with your 'completely separate, got nothing to do with each other, livin' in the 21st Century in the USA' theme.

You evidently wish to redefine, in the face of organized secularists who very much would become forceful, the concept. Yes, secularism can sit side by side with religion. But to say it has not been, is not now in many instances, nor ever will again become an agressively active agent against, as you call it, "metaphysical belief systems" is "we're all moderns here, aren't we"? chauvinistically inane. Physical violence rarely has anything to do with it.

 

[LouderVol]

Always interesting for someone to cling onto etymology in a modern conversation. In modern American political discourse (mind you, you find yourself in a modern American political forum), secularism is the eschewment of religion or religious doctrine via force. What is the vehicle of force in the US/modern world? Government.

Secularism and religiousness are not mutually exclusive. One can be both religious AND secular. Many are.

One is a political philosophy (given a vehicle of force) while the other is a metaphysical belief system. They are totally separate concepts.

I think you are conflating someone that is pro government as someone who is secular. that is not the case.

All seculars (is that a word?) may be pro government, but all pro government is not going to be secular.

 

[Roustabout]

By sheer volume, Islam is destined to overtake Christianity.

I am personally rooting for Cthulu to make a surge, though Odin still reigns supreme in terms of sheer badassery.

When you say take over, I assume you are talking about the overall number of adherents.
Islam is making its biggest gains I secular countries.
Interstingly, countries like Norway are not exactly welcoming to Muslims, even deporting several thousand and not making concession in public schools for their religious practice.

 

[Roustabout]

I think you are conflating someone that is pro government as someone who is secular. that is not the case.

All seculars (is that a word?) may be pro government, but all pro government is not going to be secular.

I don't think someone who is secular is necessarily pro government. I took away that secular folks might see government as a means to promote and secure their ideal, which really doesn't make concession for religious freedom. Americas right of religious freedom was always in the context of the Christian religion.

As I mentioned, we're seeing it in some European countries.

 

[LouderVol]

I don't think someone who is secular is necessarily pro government. I took away that secular folks might see government as a means to promote and secure their ideal, which really doesn't make concession for religious freedom. Americas right of religious freedom was always in the context of the Christian religion.

As I mentioned, we're seeing it in some European countries.

I don't either, but that seems to be the argument PKT was making, he is free to correct me.

and no, religious freedom was for whatever religion, or non religion. its why we never made a stance on the natives religion and couldn't stop them from operating under their beliefs. Beyond physically moving them of course. We never limited the freedom of all the Asian religions that came over. now I will agree we should never make concessions based on religion and we are seeing "favoritism" out there.

 

[Roustabout]

I don't either, but that seems to be the argument PKT was making, he is free to correct me.

and no, religious freedom was for whatever religion, or non religion. its why we never made a stance on the natives religion and couldn't stop them from operating under their beliefs. Beyond physically moving them of course. We never limited the freedom of all the Asian religions that came over. now I will agree we should never make concessions based on religion and we are seeing "favoritism" out there.

Those religions would not have had any presence during the founding of the country. The bill of rights was forged in the context of a country that practiced the Christian faith.
Of course we didn't limit those religions as they were a-political.
Islam is not merely another religion. It is first and foremost a political ideology. It is akin to someone claiming communism and fascism are protected under freedom of religion.

 

[NCFisher]

Y
You are still tying secularism to statism as if they have a necessary or causal link. What is that link? How are they not independent concepts (along with religious vs non-religious)?

No, you misunderstand; I conceded that 'secular' was too broad a term, generally, and should have confined comment to the New atheists commenting here.

That said, secularism as a political ideology is, in the main, wistfully technocratic in nature and its vanguard entirely hostile to the religious. When adherents state religion "has no place in our democratic republic" ostensibly of "reason and science", equivocate simultaneously with "having no problem with your belief...but resent you as a voting bloc(sic)", that has meaning. It is the same appeal to the perfecting of mankind presaging militant secularism last century.

If you are not among that group of secularists, then consider yourself not being painted with the brush.

 

[NCFisher]

Always interesting for someone to cling onto etymology in a modern conversation. In modern American political discourse (mind you, you find yourself in a modern American political forum), secularism is the eschewment of religion or religious doctrine via force. What is the vehicle of force in the US/modern world? Government.

Secularism and religiousness are not mutually exclusive. One can be both religious AND secular. Many are.

One is a political philosophy (given a vehicle of force) while the other is a metaphysical belief system. They are totally separate concepts.

It's not as though he/she is pining for the good old days of stone wheels. The etymology of secularism includes an unparalleled swath of destruction through the 20th century which is hardly ancient history. Secularism, in practical application, doesn't get to exclude that statist and technocratic history. In the span between that history and the current - using identical tactics of vilification and reduction - certainly not enough time has passed for me to simply wave it off as benign secularism.

The vehicle of force and source of greatest deprivation in any world has always been government in any guise.

 

[LouderVol]

Those religions would not have had any presence during the founding of the country. The bill of rights was forged in the context of a country that practiced the Christian faith.
Of course we didn't limit those religions as they were a-political.
Islam is not merely another religion. It is first and foremost a political ideology. It is akin to someone claiming communism and fascism are protected under freedom of religion.

Native Americans? they had a pretty big influence during the founding. and their faith directly conflicted with our politics. Owning land, mining, buying and owning, taxes etc. we spent the first 100+ years of our existence fighting them yet we never said their religion, the basis of the culture and the animosity, was wrong and had no place in America.

 

[k-town_king]

Those religions would not have had any presence during the founding of the country. The bill of rights was forged in the context of a country that practiced the Christian faith.
Of course we didn't limit those religions as they were a-political.
Islam is not merely another religion. It is first and foremost a political ideology. It is akin to someone claiming communism and fascism are protected under freedom of religion.

The founding fathers explicitly did not want the country to be a Christian country. Religious wars had dominated Europe for centuries and we wanted no part in it. Muslims were known to be in America and the founding fathers had no problem with them and their religion. The founding fathers acknowledged religions like Judaism and Islam and accounted for that with freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

 

[joevol33]

The founding fathers explicitly did not want the country to be a Christian country. Religious wars had dominated Europe for centuries and we wanted no part in it. Muslims were known to be in America and the founding fathers had no problem with them and their religion. The founding fathers acknowledged religions like Judaism and Islam and accounted for that with freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

Where were the Muslims at when Columbus and crew came over? Serious question, I know Indians were here, but in scool I've never covered muslims being here during any of that time. Just asking.

 

[MercyPercy]

Those religions would not have had any presence during the founding of the country. The bill of rights was forged in the context of a country that practiced the Christian faith.
Of course we didn't limit those religions as they were a-political.
Islam is not merely another religion. It is first and foremost a political ideology. It is akin to someone claiming communism and fascism are protected under freedom of religion.

That's certainly an interpretation. Let's see where this goes.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Those religions would not have had any presence during the founding of the country. The bill of rights was forged in the context of a country that practiced the Christian faith.
Of course we didn't limit those religions as they were a-political.
Islam is not merely another religion. It is first and foremost a political ideology. It is akin to someone claiming communism and fascism are protected under freedom of religion.

And I would say that it is first and foremost a religion and then a political ideology.

 

[k-town_king]

Where were the Muslims at when Columbus and crew came over? Serious question, I know Indians were here, but in scool I've never covered muslims being here during any of that time. Just asking.

You do realize several hundred years passed between Columbus arriving in America and the formation of the United States right? Or do you believe Columbus was a founding father or something?

There also were no "indians" in America. Native American or First Nations is the correct nomenclature.

 

[LouderVol]

Where were the Muslims at when Columbus and crew came over? Serious question, I know Indians were here, but in scool I've never covered muslims being here during any of that time. Just asking.

so Catholics only? or only the Christian faiths that were over here at the signing? Mormons aren't part of the Constitution kick them out?

it was religious freedom for ALL. not just the guys we agree with, for ALL.

 

[joevol33]

so Catholics only? or only the Christian faiths that were over here at the signing? Mormons aren't part of the Constitution kick them out?

it was religious freedom for ALL. not just the guys we agree with, for ALL.

I'm lost. Ha

 

[joevol33]

You do realize several hundred years passed between Columbus arriving in America and the formation of the United States right? Or do you believe Columbus was a founding father or something?

There also were no "indians" in America. Native American or First Nations is the correct nomenclature.

How do you have a right to tell me, who had an Indian grandfather, what to call them? He was fine with Indian. Are you racist towards my grandfathers people?


See, I can do your game, and sound silly also.

 

[joevol33]

And I'm just say I haven't personally read about Muslims being here before. That's why I said I was asking. I find it odd that middle eastern people would have been here, left, and came back in droves.

 

[Roustabout]

Native Americans? they had a pretty big influence during the founding. and their faith directly conflicted with our politics. Owning land, mining, buying and owning, taxes etc. we spent the first 100+ years of our existence fighting them yet we never said their religion, the basis of the culture and the animosity, was wrong and had no place in America.

Natives did not have a formal religious system, and they certainly weren't considered by the founders.
What history book are you reading?

 

[PKT_VOL]

You can continue to rattle on with your 'completely separate, got nothing to do with each other, livin' in the 21st Century in the USA' theme.

You evidently wish to redefine, in the face of organized secularists who very much would become forceful, the concept. Yes, secularism can sit side by side with religion. But to say it has not been, is not now in many instances, nor ever will again become an agressively active agent against, as you call it, "metaphysical belief systems" is "we're all moderns here, aren't we"? chauvinistically inane. Physical violence rarely has anything to do with it.

You seem to think, that I think, that because secularism and statism are completely separate concepts that an individual can't uphold both concepts. That's ridiculous.

One can be:

secularist + statist + religious
secularist + statist - religious
secularist - statist + religious
secularist - statist - religious
- secularist + statist + religious
- secularist + statist - religious
- secularist - statist + religious
- secularist - statist - religious

Some combinations are more prevalent than others, but all are possible combinations due to being independent concepts from one another.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think you are conflating someone that is pro government as someone who is secular. that is not the case.

All seculars (is that a word?) may be pro government, but all pro government is not going to be secular.

Secularists.

I don't either, but that seems to be the argument PKT was making, he is free to correct me.

and no, religious freedom was for whatever religion, or non religion. its why we never made a stance on the natives religion and couldn't stop them from operating under their beliefs. Beyond physically moving them of course. We never limited the freedom of all the Asian religions that came over. now I will agree we should never make concessions based on religion and we are seeing "favoritism" out there.

My argument has actually been the opposite. That secularism, statism, and religiousness are independent of one another. An anarchist and a communist can both be secular.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Those religions would not have had any presence during the founding of the country. The bill of rights was forged in the context of a country that practiced the Christian faith.
Of course we didn't limit those religions as they were a-political.
Islam is not merely another religion. It is first and foremost a political ideology. It is akin to someone claiming communism and fascism are protected under freedom of religion.

If one accepts a certain brand of Islam, yes. Just like if Christians accepted a certain brand of Christianity (during the dark ages). Neither are intrinsically political ideologies .

 

[LouderVol]

I'm lost. Ha

apparently when Columbus got here marked some special time deciding what religions would be accepted here. They were a Catholic crew. so Catholics have first claim? I doubt it. and if the FF only made the country for the Christians they knew about the various flavors that came after wouldn't be accepted right? If we aren't taking non Christians because they weren't here, why should we take the Christians who weren't here either? ie the Mormons and others.

the FF and the Constitution have a freedom of religion not a freedom of Christianity.