Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Interesting quiz
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6516 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 31 of 79 (282516)
01-30-2006 8:38 AM


woo-hoo got 20!

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 32 of 79 (282519)
01-30-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
01-29-2006 10:16 PM


9! Not good, but then I am a Brit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2006 10:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6101 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 33 of 79 (282524)
01-30-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
01-29-2006 10:16 PM


20
quote:
The Brits here will likely beat the Yanks on scores, though.
I got twenty. Does that mean I'm British now?
No, thank you. Love Yankhood!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2006 10:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 79 (282525)
01-30-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
01-29-2006 10:16 PM


totally bogus quiz
Very misleading....for example, the idea of separation of Church and State did not originate with France or the US. It is a very old term, popularized by the Anabaptists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2006 10:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1487 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 79 (282526)
01-30-2006 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Silent H
01-30-2006 6:01 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
Heheheh... I got a 19, though one question I got right was because I knew what they wanted and it was wholly biased.
Gotta totally agree with you on that. Biased enough that I think they were outright wrong on a few points; particularly, I'm fairly certain from reading Stephenson's Baroque Cycle that the concept of the seperation of church and state actually did originate in England with the Puritans.
Maybe I'm wrong? I actually did lose a bunch of points because I consistently gave the Puritans more credit for religious tolerance than they did. I guess that's either bias on their part or an indication of how successful fundamentalist Christian revisionism has been on me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 01-30-2006 6:01 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 9:39 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 01-31-2006 5:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 79 (282527)
01-30-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
01-30-2006 9:35 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
Crash, the idea and term, separation of Church and State, actually was used as far back as the Donatists in the 4th century.
It was a major rallying cry of the Anabaptists, and the Quakers were perhaps one of the first people to codify it into law in Pennsylvania as well as the Baptists in Rhode Island. The idea that the term came from non-religious people, or secularists, is just wrong. Moreover, by the time of the Constitution, Protestantism as a whole had been moving towards Anabaptist theology in this area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2006 9:35 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 01-30-2006 10:13 AM randman has replied
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 01-31-2006 5:09 AM randman has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 79 (282534)
01-30-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
01-30-2006 9:39 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
The idea that the term came from non-religious people, or secularists, is just wrong.
And one I've never heard expressed, as well. It was historically (and maybe still?) far, far more important to members of minority religions, like Anabaptists or Catholics, depending on where they were, than to secular folks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 9:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 11:58 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Hal Jordan
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 79 (282538)
01-30-2006 10:49 AM


Got a 14
4: I answered B (All religions) because I have seen atheism described as a religion even though I do not believe it is...
8: I answered D (All of them)
9: I answered A (Everyone) I did not know about the Puritians and their desire to establish a Theocracy.
10: I answered C
17: I answered True, should have known better; Deists, Unitarians and Freethinkers.
20: I answered True, could have sworn I saw their hand on a bible...

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4864 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 39 of 79 (282540)
01-30-2006 10:59 AM


19, but I probably guessed on about 6 of them.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 79 (282553)
01-30-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by riVeRraT
01-30-2006 8:04 AM


Show me were in any of the constitution, or Decrlaration of Independence that we cannot use bilical principals, or anyother form of morals to make up who and what we are.
It doesn't. You can, many do.
I am saying we have a right to believe whatever we want, wether it's atheist or God. One is not more valid than the other.
That's fairly common knowledge I'd have thought. I don't see anybody disagreeing with that here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2006 8:04 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 79 (282556)
01-30-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
01-30-2006 10:13 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
Catholics?...you seem to be missing the origin of the term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 01-30-2006 10:13 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:40 AM randman has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 42 of 79 (282570)
01-30-2006 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
01-29-2006 10:16 PM


I got 15, but a lot of those were enlightened guesses. As other people have observed, it's pretty clear which way they want you to jump.
I was intrigued with the idea that us Brits might do better at this test - we aren't taught any of this stuff!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2006 10:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 01-30-2006 1:02 PM Tusko has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 79 (282584)
01-30-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tusko
01-30-2006 12:39 PM


We aren't here in the US, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tusko, posted 01-30-2006 12:39 PM Tusko has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5839 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 79 (282787)
01-31-2006 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
01-30-2006 9:35 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
I'm fairly certain from reading Stephenson's Baroque Cycle that the concept of the seperation of church and state actually did originate in England with the Puritans.
Randman is correct that it was the anabaptists and well outside england. This is where one of his earlier statements have proven correct, in that some groups appear to be trying to tie some concepts to nonreligious sources.
That said you definitely picked out where the test was getting biased.
the Puritans more credit for religious tolerance than they did.
If I remember right some of the puritans were absolute horrorshows.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2006 9:35 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ReverendDG, posted 01-31-2006 5:09 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 57 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:42 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5839 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 79 (282789)
01-31-2006 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
01-30-2006 9:39 AM


Re: Secular v Religious v Xian
The idea that the term came from non-religious people, or secularists, is just wrong.
I wish you would stop using secular in place of atheist. It simply does not make sense, particularly in this subject. The anabaptists... as religious as they were... were secularists.
Yes, if we are discussing something outside of gov't practices then secular would indicate a nonreligious item, but when discussing gov't practices it means only that gov't is nonreligious in the sense that gov't is about earthly matters alone, and church is for spiritual matters.
It is not a "religious tenet", which is to say one must be religious, to believe in such a separation and there have been those outside religious communities which have promoted that idea. Neither must a person be atheist to believe in secularism IN GOVT.
This test definitely scores you some points that history is getting poorly edited. What's ironic is that you don't seem to mind where the test is right and fundies are doing the editing. The founders were generally religious and secularism was a movement within religious communities, and the nation was founded on secularist principles which means it is not founded on a religion.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 9:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 02-05-2006 6:04 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024