WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

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 "anti-religion."

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
2
: 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 towards religion?

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Your Miriam Webster definition also contradicts your premise that secular means anti-religion.

It's not "mine", it's MW. Don't make things up. I'm also not saying that secular MUST mean anti-religion.

Evolution investigation is a secular one (again, you do not understand what "secular" means).

Wait, it took me some desperation to argue the obvious to you, and I provided a definition from a WORLD-RECOGNIZED dictionary that you are obviously ignoring. How the hell I don't understand the quote that I provided myself for your perusal and that you are not getting still????? Well tough.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Your Miriam Webster definition also contradicts your premise that secular means anti-religion.

It's not "mine", it's MW. Don't make things up. I'm also not saying that secular MUST mean anti-religion.

Evolution investigation is a secular one (again, you do not understand what "secular" means).

Wait, it took me some desperation to argue the obvious to you, and I provided a definition from a WORLD-RECOGNIZED dictionary that you are obviously ignoring. How the hell I don't understand the quote that I provided myself for your perusal and that you are not getting still????? Well tough.

MW contradicts your premise that secular means anti-religion. Secular means not having anything to do with religion. MW states it, every dictionary states it (what are you, in 8th grade that you have to start a premise with the dictionary definition?) Secular means absent a religion. How hard is that to understand? And you have never answered any of my questions. Are you that uncertain in your premise that you cannot answer a simple question?

This thread just got me to thinking:

They burn flags,bibles,korans but when it comes to money "in god we trust" no one ever burns it.

Government should be neutral and to use the phrase from the most "glorious leader" of "acting stupidly" as in the condemnation of a film but the silence of "art".

To me that is trying to have it both ways.

And secular means to me: no certain religion that anyone has to believe in, but if people choose to they can as long as there is a seperation from government and the private sector,

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Your Miriam Webster definition also contradicts your premise that secular means anti-religion.

It's not "mine", it's MW. Don't make things up. I'm also not saying that secular MUST mean anti-religion.

Evolution investigation is a secular one (again, you do not understand what "secular" means).

Wait, it took me some desperation to argue the obvious to you, and I provided a definition from a WORLD-RECOGNIZED dictionary that you are obviously ignoring. How the hell I don't understand the quote that I provided myself for your perusal and that you are not getting still????? Well tough.

Yes, you did. I quote you from teh top of page nine:

Anti-religious group is obviously a secular affair.

You are the one who equated secular with anti-religion. The two are different. I've been using the definitions of secular consistently throughout. I have not ignored anything. Secular is defined, repeatedly, as not being based on religious principles. Not anti-anything, secular just is, it takes no religious stance. A road is secular. An anti-religious billboard is not.