Randman's call for nonSecular education...

And you don't see the obvious flaw in your logic?

ok, maybe i'm wrong. i don't know.

well, lots of people think they know what it says, and don't. case in point, this thread. yes, i agree. it's not seminary, and there are many, many other texts that should be read too. no. i don't think the public education system here can produce a fully functional and successful student, period. (but otherwise, yes)

---

אָרַח

Mike, honestly, you are the one that doesn't want to learn. Sure, they wanted more power but they were not willing to become capitalist or religious in order to do so. They had principles other than mere lust for power, and those principles were socialist and atheist.

Sorry, but your unlinked to quote taken out of context does not prove that they felt the state was a god that created the worlds. The sheer idiocy of your continuing to maintain that stance is very telling.

Um, sorry but that dog don't hunt. Scandanavia is not secular as you interpret secular. They have state churches, the vast majority are members, and the vast majority believe God exists.The fact they are not overly zealous in religious affairs does not mean they are "secular states" comparable to the Soviets, China, or whatever.If by "secular", you merely mean "tolerant" of other religions, then most of the ministers and Christians I know, including myself, are "secular", but then you have made the term secular virtually meaningless in this discussion. Heck, the religious right is secular too. Many monks are secular. Priests from all sorts of religions are secular, and Jesus Christ was a secularist too.

Lets back this up and make it simple. Lets go back to my first post in this thread. I said that it was simply incorrect to equate atheism and communism, one being a stance on the existence of a deity and the other a political system.Now, Randman, can you answer a simple question? Are communism and atheism the same thing?

BS pure BS.The soviet state persecuted many peoples, yet oddly rarely killed or persecuted members of the Russian Orthodox church purely for being members. They remained, in words at least, opposed to it, and had it officially banned, yet it remained at large and it was and still is the main religion in the old soviet union. The persecution of religions was mainly limited to anti-semitic persecution, Jews and Muslims were excluded from many public functions. This could be attributed to an anti-semitism that predated communism by many years as evidenced by pogroms throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.Atheism was never a motive of any persecution or action of the Soviet Union, political expedience was. A fact you are obviously blind to.

I never have maintained that stance. As I've said, different religions ascribe different properties to their gods. The fact that the god of the Soviets was not held to be the creator of the world is no more an indicator of atheism then the fact that the god that you believe in doesn't have the eight arms of Hindu deities.But what's very telling is the fact that you can do nothing but attack positions I've already told you I don't hold. Your inability to address my points is obvious.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-15-2005 09:46 PM

I think, Randman, that you speak from a position of ignorance. The Scandanavian states (minus Denmark - not sure about their state religion as it seems to be more than just historical with regards to political involvement)are secular in as much as they do not allow religion to dictate the political or social makeup of the country.The fact that one religion is enshrined in the constitution or inextricably linked to the monarchy is irrelevant as shown by the UK in recent years. The queen is the head of the Church of England, and the government serves on behalf of the queen (hence the Queen's speech announcing the governments agenda for the next year, also the prime minister must go to the queen to ask for an election and dissolution of parliament and all MPs swear allegiance to the queen). This would suggest the church of England as a state religion, and yes, the majority of the population would ascribe to that. Yet parliament is the power. All motions towards the monarchy and therefore the C of E are for the book and not binding. And so religion does not dictate the laws they pass, hence secular. And the same could be said for any of the countries in Europe with a constitutional monarchy.Yes, we have in the UK what is known as a constitutional monarchy as do many countries in Europe and the rest of the world. As an example, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is the monarch, she is the head of the C of E, yet the church of England is not a 'state religion'.As for the bald assertion that 'the vast majority believe God exists', could we have the numbers? The source? The question asked to ascertain this? Any factual basis for your post?And to finish, "Jesus Christ was a securalist", you could be right, shame Christians have not followed his lead.

I know the question was not aimed at me, but I would like to input.Communism is synonomous with atheism because the writer of the 'Communist Manifesto' was so scathing of the practice of religion, especially state religions, or religions sanctioned/supported by the state. Even to the point of attacking organised religion for denying people of their essential liberty. Oddly enough, in other writings he was decidely not atheistic, rather an intellectual asking all those annoying why? questions. As the Soviet Union had only a passing resemblance to Communism, the point with regards to the USSR is moot.

Apart from football - or in my case rugger I may be wrong on this but I don't think this is true.The Church of England is technically the Established Church in England - and that makes it (by definition) a state religion.What has happened over the course of our long history is that the practical impact of the CoE being our state religion has become effectively zero.When I was at school back in the '60s and '70s we had to attend state mandated assemblies - which had a Christian element - every morning. I believe this is no longer the case - another example of the way we have disestablished the Church in practical terms but haven't done it in legal or constitutional terms.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

What really blew my mind was when I learned that the UK is a constitutional monarchy without an actual formal constitution.How do you guys get along without one? How does anybody even attempt to understand your own government without something to sum up 2000 years of English legal history?

I tried in my post to state that technically we do have a state religion, even to the point that possibly the majority of the people in the UK believe, and even want this to be the case. Nonetheless, the existance of a state religion is largely irrelevant to the politics and hence my assertion that we are largely secular. [On reading my previous post I think I missed this distinction out]. This dichotomy, to my knowledge, is replicated in many constitutional monarchies.The state mandated assemblies have to be 'mainly christian', yet many have reduced their number (one a week at the school my wife teaches at), and all pupils are allowed, with parental consent, to absent themselves from these assemblies. As for disestablishment, it is not really possible without becoming a republic, or for the queen to remove herself as head of the C of E.In the case of rugger - come on Sale!!!!

Yup we are all subjects of her glorious majestyYup we are all subjects of her majesty the Queen.But there was the Magna CartaWe have 2000 years worth of records. Anyway we don’t understand it. It just happens, as it always has done. Except when it doesn’t then we tend to get angsty and chop the heads of Kings.. Wait a while, then re-establish the monarchy when we realised we missed it.And having an informal constitution means you can do things like getting rid of guns without having to bash your head against a cast iron set of right that in some cases no longer make rational sense.