Secularism: Good or Bad?

[Salandriagado]

Development and application of philosophical and organizational concepts in society.

So long as you agree that religion is a civilizing effect on society, we dont really have a point of disagreement beyond emphasis.

I'd replace "is" by "can be" in that sentence - there have, after all, been some rather troublesome counterexamples to that.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Correct. We had to make something up that was so outrageous that it could reach the stupidity circlejerk that is christianity. You finally figured it out.

Not all Christianity. Just a relatively recent tradition of fundamentalism.

Your definition of "recent" is really weird, because it includes things about 900 years old.

Urban II:

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!

[Conserative Morality]

Not all Christianity. Just a relatively recent tradition of fundamentalism.

Your definition of "recent" is really weird, because it includes things about 900 years old.

Urban II:

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!

There's a difference between believing in the absolute righteousness of one's cause and believing in the absolute righteousness of one's points. The Catholic Church, and most of Christianity, is the former. I'm talking about the latter.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Your definition of "recent" is really weird, because it includes things about 900 years old.

Urban II:

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!

There's a difference between believing in the absolute righteousness of one's cause and believing in the absolute righteousness of one's points. The Catholic Church, and most of Christianity, is the former. I'm talking about the latter.

I believe that your distinction is imaginary with respect to fundamentalism and false with regard to the crusades. People didn't just think that god wanted them to win, they literally believed the pope to be infallible and the bible to be incontrovertible proof of its contents. The idea that fundamentalism is a new thing is nonsense.

[Conserative Morality]

I believe that your distinction is imaginary with respect to fundamentalism and false with regard to the crusades. People didn't just think that god wanted them to win, they literally believed the pope to be infallible and the bible to be incontrovertible proof of its contents. The idea that fundamentalism is a new thing is nonsense.

Papal infallibility wasn't doctrine until centuries later. Fundamentalism isn't new, but the tradition of fundamentalism I outline is recent. Read some medieval tracts on theology. Sola scriptura has never been a position of the Catholic Church.

[Othelos]

Good, I don't want to live in a theocracy.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

I believe that your distinction is imaginary with respect to fundamentalism and false with regard to the crusades. People didn't just think that god wanted them to win, they literally believed the pope to be infallible and the bible to be incontrovertible proof of its contents. The idea that fundamentalism is a new thing is nonsense.

Papal infallibility wasn't doctrine until centuries later. Fundamentalism isn't new, but the tradition of fundamentalism I outline is recent. Read some medieval tracts on theology. Sola scriptura has never been a position of the Catholic Church.

And we shouldn't put up with bullshit of any variety, new or old.

[Conserative Morality]

And we shouldn't put up with bullshit of any variety, new or old.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to justify the Crusades; rather trying to differentiate between flexible and non-flexible variants of Christianity. The former can be reasoned with, even if not always successfully. The former, no matter how fanatical they get, can change. The latter can't, by their very nature.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

And we shouldn't put up with bullshit of any variety, new or old.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to justify the Crusades; rather trying to differentiate between flexible and non-flexible variants of Christianity. The former can be reasoned with, even if not always successfully. The former, no matter how fanatical they get, can change. The latter can't, by their very nature.

The former did not change, they simply died out after insufficiently indoctrinating their children. Spanish inquisitors couldn't be reasoned with. Witch-hunters couldn't be reasoned with. The participants in the children's crusade - they couldn't be reasoned with. They were absolutely convinced that they were entirely correct, and nothing ever convinced them(maybe those kids were convinced at some point, between being captured and dying in slavery).

[The New Velociraptor Empire]

So, tell me, would you like being forced to follow Islam or Hinduism, something like that in a theocracy? Having to obey all its rules and edicts, whether you believe in it or not?

Islam and Hinduism are false religions that came about at the dawn of paganism after the Tower of Babel. We should only believe in Christ!

If God threw that much of a hissy fit at the Tower of Babel, what does he think of Burj Khalifa? Or the International Space Station?

[Oneracon]

Secularism guarantees a citizen right to freedom of and from religion, so it's good in my book.

[Conserative Morality]

The former did not change, they simply died out after insufficiently indoctrinating their children. Spanish inquisitors couldn't be reasoned with. Witch-hunters couldn't be reasoned with. The participants in the children's crusade - they couldn't be reasoned with. They were absolutely convinced that they were entirely correct, and nothing ever convinced them(maybe those kids were convinced at some point, between being captured and dying in slavery).

The Spanish Inquisition was a tool of the Spanish Crown and not the Church. Rather openly corrupt too. It wasn't any religious fervor that drove them. It was greed, hate, and loyalty to the crown. Witch-hunters were a later development in the sola scriptura tradition. In fact, many Catholic and Orthodox rulers banned witch-hunts because they were considered to be superstitious and un-Christian.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

The former did not change, they simply died out after insufficiently indoctrinating their children. Spanish inquisitors couldn't be reasoned with. Witch-hunters couldn't be reasoned with. The participants in the children's crusade - they couldn't be reasoned with. They were absolutely convinced that they were entirely correct, and nothing ever convinced them(maybe those kids were convinced at some point, between being captured and dying in slavery).

The Spanish Inquisition was a tool of the Spanish Crown and not the Church. Rather openly corrupt too. It wasn't any religious fervor that drove them. It was greed, hate, and loyalty to the crown. Witch-hunters were a later development in the sola scriptura tradition. In fact, many Catholic and Orthodox rulers banned witch-hunts because they were considered to be superstitious and un-Christian.

And both changes were instances where people in charge stopped taking the bible quite so seriously. It occured that, upon reading "thou thalt not suffer a witch to live" for the nth time, someone wondered if it wasn't bullshit. And the nutcase index went down just a little, because a little bit more of the world was ruled by secular rather than dogmatic reasoning. And isabella was not merely doing it for personal gain. She really thought that recent jewish converts were still practicing judaeism and were planning an uprising. The massive property theft was just a bonus to the crown.

[Conserative Morality]

And both changes were instances where people in charge stopped taking the bible quite so seriously.

You say 'stopped' I say 'never started'.

It occured that, upon reading "thou thalt not suffer a witch to live" for the nth time, someone wondered if it wasn't bullshit. And the nutcase index went down just a little, because a little bit more of the world was ruled by secular rather than dogmatic reasoning. And isabella was not merely doing it for personal gain. She really thought that recent jewish converts were still practicing judaeism and were planning an uprising. The massive property theft was just a bonus to the crown.

Right, that explains the blatant seizure of property and open corruption all the way up to the crown.

And if we want to get into 'well, there were other reasons too!' we can get into the Crusades all night long.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

And both changes were instances where people in charge stopped taking the bible quite so seriously.

You say 'stopped' I say 'never started'.

It occured that, upon reading "thou thalt not suffer a witch to live" for the nth time, someone wondered if it wasn't bullshit. And the nutcase index went down just a little, because a little bit more of the world was ruled by secular rather than dogmatic reasoning. And isabella was not merely doing it for personal gain. She really thought that recent jewish converts were still practicing judaeism and were planning an uprising. The massive property theft was just a bonus to the crown.

Right, that explains the blatant seizure of property and open corruption all the way up to the crown.

And if we want to get into 'well, there were other reasons too!' we can get into the Crusades all night long.

No, we wouldn't. The inquisition was not caused by both of those factors. It was caused by the religious fundamentalism of the newly crowned monarchs and their susceptibility to suggestions from catholic clergy. That cause was both necessary and sufficient. Everything else mattered only in the execution, not at all in the creation of the inquisition. If you were decapitated, then shot with a cannon, it would be idiocy to say that the cannon was a partial cause of your death. You were already dead, and the cannon just made your death a very messy and loud affair.

[Conserative Morality]

No, we wouldn't. The inquisition was not caused by both of those factors. It was caused by the religious fundamentalism of the newly crowned monarchs and their susceptibility to suggestions from catholic clergy. That cause was both necessary and sufficient. Everything else mattered only in the execution, not at all in the creation of the inquisition. If you were decapitated, then shot with a cannon, it would be idiocy to say that the cannon was a partial cause of your death. You were already dead, and the cannon just made your death a very messy and loud affair.

Right, this is why Pope opposed the creation of the Spanish Inquisition, tried to forbid its spread, demand its victims be able to appeal to Rome, and tried very few converts who could reasonably be thought to be crypto-Jews or Muslims.

You want to get into Catholic fundamentalism? Check the Roman Inquisition. But I'm afraid that's just not the level of gruesomeness you're looking for in your villains, is it?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

No, we wouldn't. The inquisition was not caused by both of those factors. It was caused by the religious fundamentalism of the newly crowned monarchs and their susceptibility to suggestions from catholic clergy. That cause was both necessary and sufficient. Everything else mattered only in the execution, not at all in the creation of the inquisition. If you were decapitated, then shot with a cannon, it would be idiocy to say that the cannon was a partial cause of your death. You were already dead, and the cannon just made your death a very messy and loud affair.

Right, this is why Pope opposed the creation of the Spanish Inquisition, tried to forbid its spread, demand its victims be able to appeal to Rome, and tried very few converts who could reasonably be thought to be crypto-Jews or Muslims.

You want to get into Catholic fundamentalism? Check the Roman Inquisition. But I'm afraid that's just not the level of gruesomeness you're looking for in your villains, is it?

No, I chose the spanish inquisition so that somebody could make history of the world: part 1 jokes. Satisfaction denied.

I could just as easily referenced the arian heresy, the albigensian crusade, massacres of the waldensians, manichaens, and cathars. And those are just the big catholic ones. Fundamentalism is not new.

[Distruzio]

If governing legitimacy is premised on the consent of the governed then it SHOULD be emotional rather than analytical.

No, it should be analytical. People who think that their hearts are the organ which deals with emotion are idiots who do not help a democracy succeed. Voting should be a premeditated act with all relevant factors taken into consideration. Voting with the reptilian part of your brain is idiotic. Appealing to the reptilian part of peoples' brains is what tanked the US in the first place.

Youre confusing fantasy with reality. Voting is not done this way. Until you can accept that it will be quite difficult for you to reconcile reality with the way you wish things to be (as a former anarchist, im quite aware of just how painful this is).

[Conserative Morality]

No, I chose the spanish inquisition so that somebody could make history of the world: part 1 jokes. Satisfaction denied.

I could just as easily referenced the arian heresy, the albigensian crusade, massacres of the waldensians, manichaens, and cathars. And those are just the big catholic ones. Fundamentalism is not new.

No, but ecumenism is lacking in the inflexible modern strains I was talking about.

[Distruzio]

No, I chose the spanish inquisition so that somebody could make history of the world: part 1 jokes. Satisfaction denied.

I could just as easily referenced the arian heresy, the albigensian crusade, massacres of the waldensians, manichaens, and cathars. And those are just the big catholic ones. Fundamentalism is not new.

No, but ecumenism is lacking in the inflexible modern strains I was talking about.

The ultimate irony of the flexibility of personal interpretation is the inflexibility of application. Something that has plagued Protestantism since its inception.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

No, it should be analytical. People who think that their hearts are the organ which deals with emotion are idiots who do not help a democracy succeed. Voting should be a premeditated act with all relevant factors taken into consideration. Voting with the reptilian part of your brain is idiotic. Appealing to the reptilian part of peoples' brains is what tanked the US in the first place.

Youre confusing fantasy with reality. Voting is not done this way. Until you can accept that it will be quite difficult for you to reconcile reality with the way you wish things to be (as a former anarchist, im quite aware of just how painful this is).

I am well aware of the state of voting in the US - as referenced in my post. It does not have to be this way, as demonstrated by working democracies in Europe, and Canada. Canada is basically always doing everything well, though. Those voters make a hell of a lot less uninformed decisions, and don't follow the american tradition of registering with a party and voting for it until you die. People vote on issues. Just look at france: president had a sex scandal, nobody really cared because he was the president, not their husband, not their marriage counselor, and his relationships were not relevant to his governance. In france, the government fears the citizens because they vote after thought. In the US, the government controls the people through the same primitive, emotional, reptilian parts of the brain that have voters so well conditioned to never change a thing.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

No, I chose the spanish inquisition so that somebody could make history of the world: part 1 jokes. Satisfaction denied.

I could just as easily referenced the arian heresy, the albigensian crusade, massacres of the waldensians, manichaens, and cathars. And those are just the big catholic ones. Fundamentalism is not new.

No, but ecumenism is lacking in the inflexible modern strains I was talking about.

Doesn't mean they aren't dangerous fanatics. It's still fundamentalism.

[Distruzio]

No, but ecumenism is lacking in the inflexible modern strains I was talking about.

Doesn't mean they aren't dangerous fanatics. It's still fundamentalism.

Youre stretching. Grasping, even.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Doesn't mean they aren't dangerous fanatics. It's still fundamentalism.

Youre stretching. Grasping, even.

Ahem.

Andurs Brevik.

I believe that I've made my case for the time being.

[Distruzio]

Youre stretching. Grasping, even.

Ahem.

Andurs Brevik.

I believe that I've made my case for the time being.

Who?