|
|
Post by general313 on Nov 6, 2017 20:10:54 GMT
Religion has no part interfering in the state, while I support organised religion I also think religion is highly personal and organised religion should be about guiding not dictating. In any case in modern society (as has been hinted) which religion gets chosen as the state religion? I hear the French had a pretty good system in the 16th century. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 6, 2017 20:20:59 GMT
Religion has no part interfering in the state, while I support organised religion I also think religion is highly personal and organised religion should be about guiding not dictating. In any case in modern society (as has been hinted) which religion gets chosen as the state religion? I hear the French had a pretty good system in the 16th century. I think I rest my case. But I can see the argument historically, most populations were homogenous in terms of belief sets and cultural leanings, this is no longer the case. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Nov 6, 2017 20:29:13 GMT
I hear the French had a pretty good system in the 16th century. I think I rest my case. But I can see the argument historically, most populations were homogenous in terms of belief sets and cultural leanings, this is no longer the case. Yep, 16th century France, blissfully homogeneous.   |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 6, 2017 22:17:50 GMT
I think I rest my case. But I can see the argument historically, most populations were homogenous in terms of belief sets and cultural leanings, this is no longer the case. Yep, 16th century France, blissfully homogeneous. Yeah those guys practising falun gong in the background really stand out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 2:54:28 GMT
Government rejects truth simply because it is religious. Such as? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 7, 2017 8:08:08 GMT
Religion has no part interfering in the state, while I support organised religion I also think religion is highly personal and organised religion should be about guiding not dictating. In any case in modern society (as has been hinted) which religion gets chosen as the state religion? One thing at a time, gadreel. What do you think of this flag? Do you see a separation of government and religion here?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 14:44:46 GMT
Big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2017 16:42:46 GMT
Religion has no part interfering in the state, while I support organised religion I also think religion is highly personal and organised religion should be about guiding not dictating. In any case in modern society (as has been hinted) which religion gets chosen as the state religion? One thing at a time, gadreel. What do you think of this flag? Do you see a separation of government and religion here? I was giving my opinion on the idea of separating state and religion, I have never suggested that there are no places in the world where religion and state are the same, I wonder what it is you are trying to drive at here? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 7, 2017 17:02:39 GMT
One thing at a time, gadreel. What do you think of this flag? Do you see a separation of government and religion here? I was giving my opinion on the idea of separating state and religion, I have never suggested that there are no places in the world where religion and state are the same, I wonder what it is you are trying to drive at here? Hopefully you can figure it out yourself eventually. Maya asked: Who is for Separation of Church And State?
And you replied with:
Religion has no part interfering in the state,
Stare at if for a while and see if you can recognize an assumption you made that was not directly addressed by the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2017 17:22:49 GMT
I was giving my opinion on the idea of separating state and religion, I have never suggested that there are no places in the world where religion and state are the same, I wonder what it is you are trying to drive at here? Hopefully you can figure it out yourself eventually. Maya asked: Who is for Separation of Church And State?
And you replied with:
Religion has no part interfering in the state,
Stare at if for a while and see if you can recognize an assumption you made that was not directly addressed by the OP. Why don't you spell it out for me as I think you are suggesting I thought or said something that I did not intend to. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 7, 2017 17:35:31 GMT
Hopefully you can figure it out yourself eventually. Maya asked: Who is for Separation of Church And State?
And you replied with:
Religion has no part interfering in the state,
Stare at if for a while and see if you can recognize an assumption you made that was not directly addressed by the OP. Why don't you spell it out for me as I think you are suggesting I thought or said something that I did not intend to. I don't see why I should have to spell it out for you. You and your bunch are the ones with the logic, the science, the critical thinking, etc. All I've got are Bronze Age superstitions and YouTube videos. Think about it, gadreel. Does the term "separation of church and state" always imply that religion is to be prevented from interfering in the state, and never vice versa? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2017 17:46:57 GMT
Why don't you spell it out for me as I think you are suggesting I thought or said something that I did not intend to. I don't see why I should have to spell it out for you. You and your bunch are the ones with the logic, the science, the critical thinking, etc. All I've got are Bronze Age superstitions and YouTube videos. Think about it, gadreel. Does the term "separation of church and state" always imply that religion is to be prevented from interfering in the state, and never vice versa? Ahh I wrote something and you assumed, you know what happens when you do that? Although I am not looking like an ass. Of course there is no situation where the state does not have some power over the religion, that is required so crackpots don't make religious laws that contradict the state laws. I am not sure why you would post the flag of a theocracy to point this out, that does not make any sense. If you would like to engage in a conversation with me, please don't play petty games, simply state clearly and concisely what it is you are trying to say so that I can respond without out this kind of half insulting bull shit |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 7, 2017 17:54:34 GMT
I don't see why I should have to spell it out for you. You and your bunch are the ones with the logic, the science, the critical thinking, etc. All I've got are Bronze Age superstitions and YouTube videos. Think about it, gadreel. Does the term "separation of church and state" always imply that religion is to be prevented from interfering in the state, and never vice versa? Ahh I wrote something and you assumed, you know what happens when you do that? Although I am not looking like an ass. Of course there is no situation where the state does not have some power over the religion, that is required so crackpots don't make religious laws that contradict the state laws. I am not sure why you would post the flag of a theocracy to point this out, that does not make any sense. If you would like to engage in a conversation with me, please don't play petty games, simply state clearly and concisely what it is you are trying to say so that I can respond without out this kind of half insulting bull shit Naw, I'm going to see how long it takes for you to figure it out. And saying, "That does not make any sense" is a blame shift which means, "I don't understand." I tried to understand M theory once, and it was confusing as all hell, but I say that I don't understand it. I don't say, "That doesn't make any sense." Such would be arrogance. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2017 17:56:27 GMT
Ahh I wrote something and you assumed, you know what happens when you do that? Although I am not looking like an ass. Of course there is no situation where the state does not have some power over the religion, that is required so crackpots don't make religious laws that contradict the state laws. I am not sure why you would post the flag of a theocracy to point this out, that does not make any sense. If you would like to engage in a conversation with me, please don't play petty games, simply state clearly and concisely what it is you are trying to say so that I can respond without out this kind of half insulting bull shit Naw, I'm going to see how long it takes for you to figure it out. And saying, "That does not make any sense" is a blame shift which means, "I don't understand." I tried to understand M theory once, and it was confusing as all hell, but I say that I don't understand it. I don't say, "That doesn't make any sense." Such would be arrogance. I will re-engage with you when you are prepared to actually converse, I am not into playing petty games with you. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 7, 2017 18:03:19 GMT
Naw, I'm going to see how long it takes for you to figure it out. And saying, "That does not make any sense" is a blame shift which means, "I don't understand." I tried to understand M theory once, and it was confusing as all hell, but I say that I don't understand it. I don't say, "That doesn't make any sense." Such would be arrogance. I will re-engage with you when you are prepared to actually converse, I am not into playing petty games with you. Look, I think I may know where Maya is going with this thread because it seems to have been inspired by something she and I discussed privately, something that actually happened, and if so I don't want to give it away prematurely. Also, I noticed that she entitled the thread Part I. Does that mean there will be a Part II? Or was she inspired by Mel Brooks? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 8, 2017 20:35:56 GMT
Were you going to come back to this? It may have been interesting but exchanging 'thoughts' with Erjen is hurting my brain. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Nov 8, 2017 23:10:52 GMT
Religion can and will oppress the rights of people if allowed authority. That's why I have a problem with the Queen being the Head of State and the Head of the Church of England. She should step down from at least one of those roles. To be fair, I'm no monarchist, but I don't actually mind the Queen as Head of State - I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about the same topic when Charles takes over, but that's a different matter. But I do have much more of an issue with Bishops in the House of Lords, state funding of Faith Schools and exceptions to laws being made on religious basis. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 8, 2017 23:18:43 GMT
Religion can and will oppress the rights of people if allowed authority. That's why I have a problem with the Queen being the Head of State and the Head of the Church of England. She should step down from at least one of those roles. To be fair, I'm no monarchist, but I don't actually mind the Queen as Head of State - I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about the same topic when Charles takes over, but that's a different matter. But I do have much more of an issue with Bishops in the House of Lords, state funding of Faith Schools and exceptions to laws being made on religious basis. She is also Commander in Chief of the British armed forces. In theory the Queen could dissolve Parliament and order the army to occupy Westminster. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 23:31:06 GMT
That's why I have a problem with the Queen being the Head of State and the Head of the Church of England. She should step down from at least one of those roles. To be fair, I'm no monarchist, but I don't actually mind the Queen as Head of State - I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about the same topic when Charles takes over, but that's a different matter. But I do have much more of an issue with Bishops in the House of Lords, state funding of Faith Schools and exceptions to laws being made on religious basis. She is also Commander in Chief of the British armed forces. In theory the Queen could dissolve Parliament and order the army to occupy Westminster. In theory. In practice, the historical precedent indicates that it is... unwise... for a monarch to try to order parliament around too much. A monarch who took that "head of the armed forces" thing too seriously might also want to consider why the Navy is the "Royal Navy" and the Air Force is the "Royal Air Force", but the Army is just the "British Army"... |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 9, 2017 23:19:58 GMT
She is also Commander in Chief of the British armed forces. In theory the Queen could dissolve Parliament and order the army to occupy Westminster. In theory. In practice, the historical precedent indicates that it is... unwise... for a monarch to try to order parliament around too much. A monarch who took that "head of the armed forces" thing too seriously might also want to consider why the Navy is the "Royal Navy" and the Air Force is the "Royal Air Force", but the Army is just the "British Army"... True, but the Queen remains the commander in chief of the army and every UK solider pledges alligance to the Crown, not Parliament. |
|
