posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:41 PM
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by NavyDoc
And we have gone over this, even including the dictionary definition of "secular" which you obviously did not understand. Secular does not mean
No it does not. At the same time, if one does not like religion, and they are secular, there is no contradiction in terms of any sort.
Secular means not having anything to do with religion.
I'll stick with Merriam-Webster.
a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal
b : not overtly or specifically religious
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
If you invent your own definitions for everything, that's your problem, really. The official definition of "secular" has little to do with what you
are trying to ascribe to same. Epic fail.
People can bitch about evolution research, but that, in and of itself, is a secular, not a religious activity. When government supports
anti-religious messages, such as Piss Christ, it goes from the proper role of secular, non-religious neutrality, to taking a religious stance.
You seem to contradict yourself. Piss Christ is open to a wide range is interpretations, including those from bona fide Christians who find it
representative of what mankind did to Christ. So they say it's OK to display it.
On the other hand, the evolution research seems to indicate that anyone who takes Genesis seriously is a mental case. How's that "neutral"? You
just stick to unimportant issues and miss out on the real stuff. Weak. Like, really weak.
Your Miriam Webster definition also contradicts your premise that secular means anti-religion. By your own quote you contradict your own premise.
That is a fail in and of itself. Again you make my point for me.
You contune to ignore my question. Is that because you know you have agrued yourself into a corner? That is very weak and very cowardly.
As you state, Piss Christ is a statement on what Christ did to man, and thus a religious statement, and thus a violation of the first amendment.
Evolution investigation is a secular one (again, you do not understand what "secular" means). If a text book states that "this is what the
scientific evidence points to" this is a secular statement and neutral when it comes to religion. If a textbook states, "those stupid Christians
believe" this is a violation of the neutrality of the state and suporting a religious stance.
I've presented the question numerous times and you have dodged them time and time again: do you think the state should be neutral or antagonistic