Secularism: Good or Bad?

[Greater Weselton]

Secularism is generally bad.

Said no one with over 90 IQ ever.

I have a 116 IQ.

Secularism is generally bad.

But is it worse or better than the alternatives - like, say, living in the new Caliphate ?

I do agree it is better than a Caliphate.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Secularism is generally bad.

How is it bad.

[Old Tyrannia]

Secularism is generally bad.

Said no one with over 90 IQ ever.

Source please.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

I don't understand what you're getting at. A desk of higher weight would be only more difficult to use as a weapon, and only be a less effective weapon. A desk is less effective and using your own body in an attack, and strapping everyone to a chair does constitute and undue burden. There's no way to make any location entirely safe, so schools are concerned with making it as safe as possible while maintaining as effective a learning environment as possible. A surface is needed for tasks such as taking notes, and completing assignments and tests. The floor does not constitute an effective surface for this use.

Of course it does.

I've studied with my books on the floor.

Also, a desk of a reasonable weight but light enough that you can carry it across a room without getting tired is excellent as a weapon. Do you really think that a desk is not a weapon?

Also, we were not talking about the sikh's knife as an "undue burden", we were talking about it in terms of a potential threat. I'm telling you desks are a potential threat. You don't need to know how I know this.

A skull breaks faster by blows from a knee than from blows from a swung desk. Since a desk does not increase the danger of a school, but is required for an effective teaching environment, their removal is both idiotic and an undue burden.

I WAS talking about EVERYTHING with respect to it being or not being an undue burden, which I EXPLICITLY stated in my original post on the subject of religious crap being censored and banned from schools.

[The Alma Mater]

I have a 116 IQ.

You poor thing What's that like ?

[Greater Weselton]

Secularism is generally bad.

How is it bad.

It leads to socialism and immorality.

I have a 116 IQ.

You poor thing What's that like ?

I like it.

[Greater-London]

But is it worse or better than the alternatives - like, say, living in the new Caliphate ?

To be fair I don't think its much better or worse than say, living in the UK which has an established church.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

How is it bad.

It leads to socialism and immorality.

You poor thing What's that like ?

I like it.

Leading to socialism - no objections there. Maybe we can speed it up, though?
To immorality - Source?

[Greater Weselton]

It leads to socialism and immorality.
I like it.

Leading to socialism - no objections there. Maybe we can speed it up, though?
To immorality - Source?

Look at America today.

[Communist Volkstrad]

It leads to socialism and immorality.
I like it.

Leading to socialism - no objections there. Maybe we can speed it up, though?
To immorality - Source?

Yes, full agreement.

[Utceforp]

Said no one with over 90 IQ ever.

I have a 116 IQ.

But is it worse or better than the alternatives - like, say, living in the new Caliphate ?

I do agree it is better than a Caliphate.

So you don't like secularism, but you also don't like state religion either?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Leading to socialism - no objections there. Maybe we can speed it up, though?
To immorality - Source?

Look at America today.

The only politicians in the last year who have had sex scandals(which I have been made aware of) were all republicans. So, source? Secular locations in the USA seem to be doing pretty damn well.

[Greater Weselton]

I have a 116 IQ.
I do agree it is better than a Caliphate.

So you don't like secularism, but you also don't like state religion either?

I do not like Islam being the state religion.

Look at America today.

The only politicians in the last year who have had sex scandals(which I have been made aware of) were all republicans. So, source? Secular locations in the USA seem to be doing pretty damn well.

Look at all the states legalizing gay marriage.

[Communist Volkstrad]

So you don't like secularism, but you also don't like state religion either?

I do not like Islam being the state religion.

The only politicians in the last year who have had sex scandals(which I have been made aware of) were all republicans. So, source? Secular locations in the USA seem to be doing pretty damn well.

Look at all the states legalizing gay marriage.

Good for them, they are giving people freedom to marry who they love and do things that are none of the state's concern. More states need to legalize it.

[Twilight Imperium]

A skull breaks faster by blows from a knee than from blows from a swung desk. Since a desk does not increase the danger of a school, but is required for an effective teaching environment, their removal is both idiotic and an undue burden.

I WAS talking about EVERYTHING with respect to it being or not being an undue burden, which I EXPLICITLY stated in my original post on the subject of religious crap being censored and banned from schools.

Given your history with disciplining students and your ready access to information about the relative lethality of various common objects, I can only assume that your school days were much more awesome than mine. Was M. Bison the headmaster or something?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Of course it does.

I've studied with my books on the floor.

Also, a desk of a reasonable weight but light enough that you can carry it across a room without getting tired is excellent as a weapon. Do you really think that a desk is not a weapon?

Also, we were not talking about the sikh's knife as an "undue burden", we were talking about it in terms of a potential threat. I'm telling you desks are a potential threat. You don't need to know how I know this.

A skull breaks faster by blows from a knee than from blows from a swung desk. Since a desk does not increase the danger of a school, but is required for an effective teaching environment, their removal is both idiotic and an undue burden.

I WAS talking about EVERYTHING with respect to it being or not being an undue burden, which I EXPLICITLY stated in my original post on the subject of religious crap being censored and banned from schools.

Who ever said that the intent of using a desk as a weapon was to break your skull open?

Or is that the only way you know how someone might be critically injured? Would explain why you're arguing that a desk isn't an effective weapon when everything about it points to the contrary.

And no, you weren't when you were talking about the knife:

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size. The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

But, of course, pretend like you never said that either.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

So you don't like secularism, but you also don't like state religion either?

I do not like Islam being the state religion.

The only politicians in the last year who have had sex scandals(which I have been made aware of) were all republicans. So, source? Secular locations in the USA seem to be doing pretty damn well.

Look at all the states legalizing gay marriage.

Yeah, that's a little thing called progress. Still seeing nothing but good things about secularism.

[Utceforp]

So you don't like secularism, but you also don't like state religion either?

I do not like Islam being the state religion

Ah, so you're a hypocrite.

[The Alma Mater]

So you don't like secularism, but you also don't like state religion either?

I do not like Islam being the state religion.

What about Hinduism then ?

[CTALNH]

Said no one with over 90 IQ ever.

Source please.

Said everyone not understanding sneering sarcasm.

[CTALNH]

Said no one with over 90 IQ ever.

I have a 116 IQ.

But is it worse or better than the alternatives - like, say, living in the new Caliphate ?

I do agree it is better than a Caliphate.

Yeah? And mines like 400*20!

[Twilight Imperium]

Yeah? And mines like 400*20!

Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they're not a blithering idiot.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Yeah? And mines like 400*20!

Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they're not a blithering idiot.

We should stop talking about IQ and get back on topic.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

A skull breaks faster by blows from a knee than from blows from a swung desk. Since a desk does not increase the danger of a school, but is required for an effective teaching environment, their removal is both idiotic and an undue burden.

I WAS talking about EVERYTHING with respect to it being or not being an undue burden, which I EXPLICITLY stated in my original post on the subject of religious crap being censored and banned from schools.

Who ever said that the intent of using a desk as a weapon was to break your skull open?

Or is that the only way you know how someone might be critically injured? Would explain why you're arguing that a desk isn't an effective weapon when everything about it points to the contrary.

And no, you weren't when you were talking about the knife:

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size. The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

But, of course, pretend like you never said that either.

In all cases where a desk is used as a weapon, the human body may without modification of use of tool be used as an equivalently or more effective weapon. Since desks aren't making anything more dangerous, their removal constitutes an undue burden.

I'll make myself explicit then:
Objects which have inherent weaponized intent, as well as objects made to resemble or mimic them, are not acceptable on school grounds.
All such objects cause disruptions of the school environment and are capable of no benefit on school grounds. Their banning from school grounds does not constitute any burdens for anyone without religious attachment to such items. Such a religious attachment is irrelevant to the disruption caused, and is not a concern of the school. No exceptions will be made.
The danger posed by an easily concealable weapon of lethal capability is cause for maximum strictness in the application of a ban with respect to such items in order to preserve safety on school grounds.

Better?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Who ever said that the intent of using a desk as a weapon was to break your skull open?

Or is that the only way you know how someone might be critically injured? Would explain why you're arguing that a desk isn't an effective weapon when everything about it points to the contrary.

And no, you weren't when you were talking about the knife:



But, of course, pretend like you never said that either.

In all cases where a desk is used as a weapon, the human body may without modification of use of tool be used as an equivalently or more effective weapon. Since desks aren't making anything more dangerous, their removal constitutes an undue burden.

I'll make myself explicit then:
Objects which have inherent weaponized intent, as well as objects made to resemble or mimic them, are not acceptable on school grounds.
All such objects cause disruptions of the school environment and are capable of no benefit on school grounds. Their banning from school grounds does not constitute any burdens for anyone without religious attachment to such items. Such a religious attachment is irrelevant to the disruption caused, and is not a concern of the school. No exceptions will be made.
The danger posed by an easily concealable weapon of lethal capability is cause for maximum strictness in the application of a ban in order to preserve safety on school grounds.

Better?

Of course, without considering the fact that the body doesn't have a long-range advantage and keeping you safe at least on the mid-range.


And that's better. I disagree with your opinion, but that's a better rephrase of what you were meaning instead of what was read and interpreted.