What is "secular"?

[Bryan]

A confrontational style of evangelism?

Yes.

And coming up to someone on the street and saying that he was going to hell if he did not accept Jesus or telling a captive audience of high school kids that Jesus died for their sins is not confrontational?.

Huh? Who said that, and even if they did what of it? Have you got a logical fallacy in mind?

What I am saying is that I want Xians like you to stop telling me that I had to live by their rules.

When you do that, you're telling them to live by your rules.

Have you been blind to your own hypocrisy, or what?

It's really quite annoying.  It is pissing me off.

Time for you to pry yourself up off your butt and get the First Amendment repealed, then.

Now go ahead and answer me by pulling things out of your ass.

Tit for tat, eh?

You have not said anything negative about me only because you know nothing at all about me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know from your post that you have exhibited hypocrisy. You want others to live by your rules so that you won't have to live by their rules.

That's your cue to post more fallacious nonsense.

[Bryan]

No great lengths.  It's just too easy to stand in judgment of you.  And it's fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And best of all, it's hypocritical.

Whee!

[Guest bewildered]

Yes.

Huh? Who said that, and even if they did what of it? Have you got a logical fallacy in mind?

It's tit for tat. If someone keeps annoying me by persistenly insisting I had to follow his rules--to accept Christ or whatever, I will answer back in the same tone. Sometimes it seems that is the only language they understand.

If someone came up to me on the street and asked if he could tell me about Jesus, or the Book of Mormon or Jehovah or Hare Krishna, I will politely say "No Thanks" and keep walking. If they continue to assault me I will get pissed. It's that simple.

When you do that, you're telling them to live by your rules.

How am I telling anyone to live by my rules? I am asking them to be kind and leave me alone. I am not saying that they have to stop preaching or that their message is kooky or that I don't like them personally. I am saying "Go Away." How does that tell anyone to follow my rules.

Have you been blind to your own hypocrisy, or what?

Time for you to pry yourself up off your butt and get the First Amendment repealed, then.

What the f u c k are you talking about ? How am I trying to restrict anyone's rights. I am only concerned about others trampling on my rights and those of others. DP has no right to preach to his students during class. It's that simple.

My father was a rabid Roman Catholic. When I started going to a public school he told me that if any of my teachers tried to read from a non-Catholic bible or say the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments. It happened several times. Each time I left class and went to the principal. The teacher was reprimanded in front of the class and the indoctrination stopped.

Following your usual dodging of important ideas, I'll ask you to show us your evidence of my hypocrisy?

That's your cue to post more fallacious nonsense.

Bryan, you are the god of fallacious nonsense. I'll let you do that.

lYou still know almost nothing about me.

[Guest bewildered]

How does my saying to someone who is annoying me to go away constitute evangelism? Whenever I meet someone who is trying to get me to accept Christ or the Book of Mormon or Scientology or anything else, I tell them "No thanks."

When they keep pressing the point and start annoying me, I tell them to "Go away." How in the world is that evangelism? Come on.

Huh? Who said that, and even if they did what of it? Have you got a logical fallacy in mind?[When you do that, you're telling them to live by your rules[/color]

Huh? How in the world do I do that? If I tell someone they are bothering me, do they have the right to bother me some more? Does anyone have the right to follow me down the street telling me that I am going to burn in hell? This is like saying "No" to a sexual advance. No means no. Saying "No thanks" or "Go away"

means only what the words mean in common usage. This in no way tells someone to follow my rules nor is it an abridgement of their right to free speech.

.Have you been blind to your own hypocrisy, or what?

Show me the hypocrisy.

[/colorTime for you to pry yourself up off your butt and get the First Amendment repealed, then.[/color]

Where have I even hinted at wanting the First Amendment repealed? Another example of your butt-mining.

I have never been accused of posting nonsense on this board. You, on the other hand, are the undisputed king of nonsense.

I know from your post that you have exhibited hypocrisy. You want others to live by your rules so that you won't have to live by their rules.

Show me the hypocrisy and show me where I am telling anyone to live by my rules. Trying to turn a fundamentalist interpretation of the biblical law into the law of the land is imposing rules. I am talking about rules restricting abortion and the right of gay people to marry, for example, that interfere with another person's rights. If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you do not think gay people should not marry, don't marry one. George Bush stated that he was working to protect the sanctity of marriage. Huh? It is not his job to protect the sanctity of anything except, perhaps, the Constitution.

That's your cue to post more fallacious nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See above. I wouldn't want to incringe on your right to post fallacious nonsense.

[Bryan]

Yellow's not a good color choice for a font that's against a white background.

FWIW.

Huh?  Who said that, and even if they did what of it?  Have you got a logical fallacy in mind?

It's tit for tat. If someone keeps annoying me by persistenly insisting I had to follow his rules--to accept Christ or whatever, I will answer back in the same tone. Sometimes it seems that is the only language they understand.

If someone came up to me on the street and asked if he could tell me about Jesus, or the Book of Mormon or Jehovah or Hare Krishna, I will politely say "No Thanks" and keep walking. If they continue to assault me I will get pissed. It's that simple.

I don't see the answer to my question "Who said that(?)"

When you do that, you're telling them to live by your rules.

How am I telling anyone to live by my rules?

By trying to force your "don't force your rules on me" rule on them, obviously.

I am asking them to be kind and leave me alone.

Right. You have a certain conception of kindness and you wish them to follow it. Forcing your rules on them (obviously).

I am not saying that they have to stop preaching or that their message is kooky or that I don't like them personally.  I am saying "Go Away."  How does that tell anyone to follow my rules.

How do you twist your thinking enough so that Go away if you're going to preach near me is not a rule?

How am I trying to restrict anyone's rights.

Your rule seems to discourage free speech. Do you disagree?

No offense, but repeating the obvious to you is getting old.

[Guest Paul]

How does my saying to someone who is annoying me to go away constitute evangelism? Whenever I meet someone who is trying to get me to accept Christ or the Book of Mormon or Scientology or anything else, I tell them "No thanks."

When they keep pressing the point and start annoying me, I tell them to "Go away." How in the world is that evangelism? Come on.

Huh? Who said that, and even if they did what of it? Have you got a logical fallacy in mind?[When you do that, you're telling them to live by your rules[/color]

Huh? How in the world do I do that? If I tell someone they are bothering me, do they have the right to bother me some more? Does anyone have the right to follow me down the street telling me that I am going to burn in hell? This is like saying "No" to a sexual advance. No means no. Saying "No thanks" or "Go away"

means only what the words mean in common usage. This in no way tells someone to follow my rules nor is it an abridgement of their right to free speech.

.Have you been blind to your own hypocrisy, or what?

Show me the hypocrisy.

[/colorTime for you to pry yourself up off your butt and get the First Amendment repealed, then.[/color]

Where have I even hinted at wanting the First Amendment repealed? Another example of your butt-mining.

I have never been accused of posting nonsense on this board. You, on the other hand, are the undisputed king of nonsense.

I know from your post that you have exhibited hypocrisy. You want others to live by your rules so that you won't have to live by their rules.

Show me the hypocrisy and show me where I am telling anyone to live by my rules. Trying to turn a fundamentalist interpretation of the biblical law into the law of the land is imposing rules. I am talking about rules restricting abortion and the right of gay people to marry, for example, that interfere with another person's rights. If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you do not think gay people should not marry, don't marry one. George Bush stated that he was working to protect the sanctity of marriage. Huh? It is not his job to protect the sanctity of anything except, perhaps, the Constitution.

That's your cue to post more fallacious nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See above. I wouldn't want to incringe on your right to post fallacious nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bewildered, you don't understand how these people think. They have revealed knowledge, given to them directly from God. If you don't agree with them, and worse, adopt laws that don't follow what they believe, you're imposing your views on them.

You think you're bewildered now. Just keep trying to talk to Bryan under the assumption that the result is going to make sense.

[Guest bewildered]

See above. I wouldn't want to incringe on your right to post fallacious nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bewildered, you don't understand how these people think. They have revealed knowledge, given to them directly from God. If you don't agree with them, and worse, adopt laws that don't follow what they believe, you're imposing your views on them.

You think you're bewildered now. Just keep trying to talk to Bryan under the assumption that the result is going to make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't get out much these days. Baiting Bryan is one of the few pleasures that that I have left. Actually I hope against hope that he has some brain cells that he hasn't killed off. I know I am being overly optimistic.

Bill

[Guest bewildered]

[

Sorry about the double posting. I thought that my first one had been rejected.

[Bryan]

bewildered, you don't understand how these people think. They have revealed knowledge, given to them directly from God. If you don't agree with them, and worse, adopt laws that don't follow what they believe, you're imposing your views on them.

lol

If there were no god and no revealed knowledge, "bewildered" would just as assuredly be imposing his views on others.

LaClair comes through with yet another fallacy of distraction.

You think you're bewildered now. Just keep trying to talk to Bryan under the assumption that the result is going to make sense. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See? No attempt to deal with the logic.

If what I had written actually did not make sense, then it would be possible for an able opponent to find a flaw in the logic (without himself committing a fallacy in the rebuttal).

LaClair is not an able opponent, which is why we see him employing fallacies of distraction over and over again.

[Guest bewildered]

Yellow's not a good color choice for a font that's against a white background.

FWIW.

It's tit for tat. If someone keeps annoying me by persistenly insisting I had to follow his rules--to accept Christ or whatever, I will answer back in the same tone. Sometimes it seems that is the only language they understand.

If someone came up to me on the street and asked if he could tell me about Jesus, or the Book of Mormon or Jehovah or Hare Krishna, I will politely say "No Thanks" and keep walking. If they continue to assault me I will get pissed. It's that simple.

I don't see the answer to my question "Who said that(?)"

How am I telling anyone to live by my rules?

By trying to force your "don't force your rules on me" rule on them, obviously.

Right. You have a certain conception of kindness and you wish them to follow it. Forcing your rules on them (obviously).

How do you twist your thinking enough so that Go away if you're going to preach near me is not a rule?

Your rule seems to discourage free speech. Do you disagree?

No offense, but repeating the obvious to you is getting old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said that. I was not quoting anyone else; I was giving an opinion. Why can't you see that?

The leaps of logic in your next statement is mind-boggling. You mean that other people can tell me how to live but I cannot politely ask them to leave me alone.

My concept of kindness is based on the philosophy that states: Do to others as you wish they would do to you. I am being naive but I thought that was central to Jesus' message--something the religious right continually ignore.

I am certainly not talking about people who are preaching near me. What a ridiculous conclusion. I am talking about people who are preaching at me directly in my face. Other people have the right to scream in my face and, on one occasion, to scare the crap out of my little brother?

By extension following someone down the street calling them all sorts of racial epithets is okay because you are denying their right to free speech if you ask them to stop. I think there are pretty clear boundaries between free speech and verbal harassment. (Maybe Paul could explain this to you.)

What is obvious is that you are out of your mind.

I used yellow just to annoy you. I seem to have succeeded.

Bill

[Guest KearnyKard]

I don't see the answer to my question "Who said that(?)"

How am I telling anyone to live by my rules?

By trying to force your "don't force your rules on me" rule on them, obviously.

Right. You have a certain conception of kindness and you wish them to follow it. Forcing your rules on them (obviously).

How do you twist your thinking enough so that Go away if you're going to preach near me is not a rule?

Your rule seems to discourage free speech. Do you disagree?

No offense, but repeating the obvious to you is getting old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said that. I was not quoting anyone else; I was giving an opinion. Why can't you see that?

The leaps of logic in your next statement is mind-boggling. You mean that other people can tell me how to live but I cannot politely ask them to leave me alone.

My concept of kindness is based on the philosophy that states: Do to others as you wish they would do to you. I am being naive but I thought that was central to Jesus' message--something the religious right continually ignore.

I am certainly not talking about people who are preaching near me. What a ridiculous conclusion. I am talking about people who are preaching at me directly in my face. Other people have the right to scream in my face and, on one occasion, to scare the crap out of my little brother?

By extension following someone down the street calling them all sorts of racial epithets is okay because you are denying their right to free speech if you ask them to stop. I think there are pretty clear boundaries between free speech and verbal harassment. (Maybe Paul could explain this to you.)

What is obvious is that you are out of your mind.

I used yellow just to annoy you. I seem to have succeeded.

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Old, Stale, Trite, Boring .....Ho-Hum.

[Guest bewildered]

By trying to force your "don't force your rules on me" rule on them, obviously.

Right. You have a certain conception of kindness and you wish them to follow it. Forcing your rules on them (obviously).

How do you twist your thinking enough so that Go away if you're going to preach near me is not a rule?

Your rule seems to discourage free speech. Do you disagree?

No offense, but repeating the obvious to you is getting old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said that. I was not quoting anyone else; I was giving an opinion. Why can't you see that?

The leaps of logic in your next statement is mind-boggling. You mean that other people can tell me how to live but I cannot politely ask them to leave me alone.

My concept of kindness is based on the philosophy that states: Do to others as you wish they would do to you. I am being naive but I thought that was central to Jesus' message--something the religious right continually ignore.

I am certainly not talking about people who are preaching near me. What a ridiculous conclusion. I am talking about people who are preaching at me directly in my face. Other people have the right to scream in my face and, on one occasion, to scare the crap out of my little brother?

By extension following someone down the street calling them all sorts of racial epithets is okay because you are denying their right to free speech if you ask them to stop. I think there are pretty clear boundaries between free speech and verbal harassment. (Maybe Paul could explain this to you.)

What is obvious is that you are out of your mind.

I used yellow just to annoy you. I seem to have succeeded.

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Old, Stale, Trite, Boring .....Ho-Hum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see the Korny Kad is back with his usual imperceptible wisdom. Your comment has shown me the light. Thanks.

[Bryan]

I don't see the answer to my question "Who said that(?)" 

How am I telling anyone to live by my rules?

By trying to force your "don't force your rules on me" rule on them, obviously.

Right. You have a certain conception of kindness and you wish them to follow it. Forcing your rules on them (obviously).

How do you twist your thinking enough so that Go away if you're going to preach near me is not a rule?

Your rule seems to discourage free speech. Do you disagree?

No offense, but repeating the obvious to you is getting old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said that. I was not quoting anyone else; I was giving an opinion. Why can't you see that?

You were giving an opinion with this?

"And coming up to someone on the street and saying that he was going to hell if he did not accept Jesus or telling a captive audience of high school kids that Jesus died for their sins is not confrontational?."

Do you regularly give your opinion with a question mark at the end?

The leaps of logic in your next statement is mind-boggling.  You mean that other people can tell me how to live but I cannot politely ask them to leave me alone.

Baloney--that's not what I mean at all.

You complained on the principle that they were trying to force their rules on you, but that's exactly what you seem to wish to do to them. It's perfectly fine with me if you ask them to leave you alone--but you're both doing the same thing, in principle--asking the other to do things your way.

If you had simply said that you don't like it when others preach at you so you ask them not to do it, then you wouldn't have manifested the hypocrisy.

My concept of kindness is based on the philosophy that states: Do to others as you wish they would do to you.

So you give your wife power tools for Christmas? Or do their wishes of others count for anything?

I am being naive but I thought that was central to Jesus' message--something the religious right continually ignore.

'Cause the religious right is all hypocrites and stuff. Plus they're always judging people.

I am certainly not talking about people who are preaching near me.  What a ridiculous conclusion.

Your position suffers the same problem regardless.

I am talking about people who are preaching at me directly in my face.

It wouldn't exactly be hard to fashion that into a rule.

Other people have the right to scream in my face and, on one occasion, to scare the crap out of my little brother?

Well, yeah. But you could always try to get the First Amendment repealed, like I said. And if they broke some law while they were screaming in your face you might be able to successfully file an injunction.

By extension following someone down the street calling them all sorts of racial epithets is okay because you are denying their right to free speech if you ask them to stop.

If "by extension" you mean "After I, 'bewildered,' turn it into a straw man" anyway.

Quiet time at KinderCare discourages free speech, we should agree. But there's no cause for claiming that our agreement, by extension, means that KinderCare is denying free speech rights.

I think there are pretty clear boundaries between free speech and verbal harassment. (Maybe Paul could explain this to you.)

I'd like to see him explain verbal harassment purely in terms of the scenario you first presented, without adding elements to it wholesale.

What is obvious is that you are out of your mind.

I used yellow just to annoy you.  I seem to have succeeded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to try harder.

[Guest bewildered]

By trying to force your "don't force your rules on me" rule on them, obviously.

Right.  You have a certain conception of kindness and you wish them to follow it.  Forcing your rules on them (obviously).

How do you twist your thinking enough so that Go away if you're going to preach near me is not a rule?

Your rule seems to discourage free speech.  Do you disagree?

Of course not.  Do I have the right to go into a church during a service and tell them all to go bugger themselves?  Can I make verbal threats against elected officials?  There are legal limits to free speech.  I am not asking to change or make laws, I am simply telling someone to stop irritating me.  How can I make you see this?  I am not telling them to stop preaching to others; I am not telling them to change their beliefs; I am not telling them that their message is wrong;  I am not condemning anyone to burn in hell for eternity.

All I ask for is common courtesy.  If someone accidentally bumps into you should you push him back?  If someone is trying to drive out of a parking lot, do you block the driveway just because you have the right of way or do you let them go in front of you.  This is common decent courtesy.  That is all that I am asking.

You were giving an opinion with this?

"And coming up to someone on the street and saying that he was going to hell if he did not accept Jesus or telling a captive audience of high school kids that Jesus died for their sins is not confrontational?."

Do you regularly give your opinion with a question mark at the end? 

Baloney--that's not what I mean at all.

Reread the post.  I was questioning your statement that I was practicing "confrontational evangelism."  My opinion was stated in the question.

You complained on the principle that they were trying to force their rules on you, but that's exactly what you seem to wish to do to them.  It's perfectly fine with me if you ask them to leave you alone--but you're both doing the same thing, in principle--asking the other to do things your way.

Bullsh*t.  Here is an analogy:  if someone is shooting a gun at you should you restrain from trying to stop because if you do, you are imposing your rules on him.

If you had simply said that you don't like it when others preach at you so you ask them not to do it, then you wouldn't have manifested the hypocrisy.

I thought that is what I said.

So you give your wife power tools for Christmas?  Or do their wishes of others count for anything?

Is Matthew 7:12 wrong?  No wife and I never touch powertools.

'Cause the religious right is all hypocrites and stuff.  Plus they're always judging people. 

Your position suffers the same problem regardless.

It wouldn't exactly be hard to fashion that into a rule.

Well, yeah.  But you could always try to get the First Amendment repealed, like I said.  And if they broke some law while they were screaming in your face you might be able to successfully file an injunction.

I believe there are already laws against verbal harassment or assault.  Let me repeat:  I am not telling anyone to stop doing anything except to stop verbally harassing me.  No one else.  The next person down the street may want to hear the message.  He has the right to do so and the evangelist has the right to preach to him.

By extension following someone down the street calling them all sorts of racial epithets is okay because you are denying their right to free speech if you ask them to stop.

If "by extension" you mean "After I, 'bewildered,' turn it into a straw man" anyway.

Quiet time at KinderCare discourages free speech, we should agree.  But there's no cause for claiming that our agreement, by extension, means that KinderCare is denying free speech rights.

I am just giving you analogies to help you understand.

I think there are pretty clear boundaries between free speech and verbal harassment. (Maybe Paul could explain this to you.)

I'd like to see him explain verbal harassment purely in terms of the scenario you first presented, without adding elements to it wholesale.

You need to try harder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are no rules here that prohibit anyone from adding additional information to a post. This is not a court of law or a high school debate.

[ElneClare]

QUOTE

My concept of kindness is based on the philosophy that states: Do to others as you wish they would do to you.

So you give your wife power tools for Christmas? Or do their wishes of others count for anything?

Why thank-you, I been wanting a new cordless drill and set of miniature tools, for the Winter Solstice

How to you like the new set of cookware?

If folks insist on preaching at me, I walk away. The thing that upsets me is they think it is there job to teach my children religion and I have to come to the door and tell them that I send my kids to Sunday School where they are taught comparative religions.

[Bryan]

Paul has yet to unequivocally describe the "secular world view" that supposedly won out when the Framers developed the Declaration of independence.

Since that was the point of the thread, I'll summarize Paul's participation thus far and reiterate the request that Paul reveal what is meant by "secular world view."

I didn't say deism is a secular world view. I merely corrected a comment about the religious beliefs of our Constitution's framers.

There was, however, a divide at the time of the Constitutional Convention between those who wanted to adopt an explicitly religious (theistic) Constitution and those who believed it best to separate church and state. The separatist view prevailed. That much is history. Slowly over time, incursions were made. "In God We Trust" on money, "under God" in the pledge, etc. However, the fact remains that under our laws the First Amendment coupled with the Fourteenth require religious neutrality by government.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51712

Paul's initial comment to the thread accentuated his confused view of the origins of the United States (In God We Trust" is an incursion; judicial expansion of the 14th Amendment apparently not an incursion).

He talks about a "separatist" view that prevailed but stops short of saying that the separatist view is the "secular world view" to which he alluded.

No clear answer to the question as yet.

Paul's next post to the thread was ... off topic.

This is really an excellent point, one too few people pay attention to. God is what is ultimately real, not the symbols and images people call God. I think you're absolutely correct, Guest. Much of what passes for religion is instead idolatry.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52239

Paul appeared to take credit for this post by "Guest," which comes pretty close to defining "secular world view"

The beauty of a truly religious Humanism is that there is no separation between life and religion. That is one of the reasons I believe it to be true. For me, religion is what I do every moment of my life, and if I do it right it permeates me and lifts me up and makes me a better person.

Secularism and theism are categories, but no one I've ever met or heard of is a pure theist. So while theism has a long history of many adherents, those same people also compromised their theism in many ways, some more than others. I've never met anyone who didn't, and I've met some mighty strong believers.

So with that explanation, a secular worldview is one that recognizes that whatever one believes about a god, an afterlife, etc., the realities of the world are what govern how we behave in the world and among each other. There are gradations of this, all the way from a grudging acceptance of worldly realities to explicit non-theism.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52526

<purple emphasis added>

Is this explanation coherent?

If one is a theist or a deist, then isn't god one of the realities of the world?

Then Paul(?) reveals that, yes, deists and theists may possess a "secular world view" if they so much as exhibit a "grudging acceptance of worldly realities."

It seems to me that David Paszkiewicz qualifies as one with a "secular world view"--indeed, he seemed to grudgingly accept the worldly reality that getting fired from his job would result in hardship for his family.

Isn't this definition so broad as to be effectively meaningless?

After another digression,

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52566

Paul picked up with his defense of himself as "Guest."

Quoting from that post would be nearly pointless, since the answers cannot be adequately appreciated outside the context of the points to which Paul responded.

In short, Paul failed to address the inadequacies of the definition he (as "Guest") offered.

I responded to Paul's most recent on-topic offering here.

Now it's for Paul to try to address the problems, if he's able.

[Guest Paul]

Paul has yet to unequivocally describe the "secular world view" that supposedly won out when the Framers developed the Declaration of independence.

Since that was the point of the thread, I'll summarize Paul's participation thus far and reiterate the request that Paul reveal what is meant by "secular world view."

I didn't say deism is a secular world view. I merely corrected a comment about the religious beliefs of our Constitution's framers.

There was, however, a divide at the time of the Constitutional Convention between those who wanted to adopt an explicitly religious (theistic) Constitution and those who believed it best to separate church and state. The separatist view prevailed. That much is history. Slowly over time, incursions were made. "In God We Trust" on money, "under God" in the pledge, etc. However, the fact remains that under our laws the First Amendment coupled with the Fourteenth require religious neutrality by government.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51712

Paul's initial comment to the thread accentuated his confused view of the origins of the United States (In God We Trust" is an incursion; judicial expansion of the 14th Amendment apparently not an incursion). 

He talks about a "separatist" view that prevailed but stops short of saying that the separatist view is the "secular world view" to which he alluded.

No clear answer to the question as yet.

Paul's next post to the thread was ... off topic.

This is really an excellent point, one too few people pay attention to. God is what is ultimately real, not the symbols and images people call God. I think you're absolutely correct, Guest. Much of what passes for religion is instead idolatry.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52239

Paul appeared to take credit for this post by "Guest," which  comes pretty close to defining "secular world view"

The beauty of a truly religious Humanism is that there is no separation between life and religion. That is one of the reasons I believe it to be true. For me, religion is what I do every moment of my life, and if I do it right it permeates me and lifts me up and makes me a better person.

Secularism and theism are categories, but no one I've ever met or heard of is a pure theist. So while theism has a long history of many adherents, those same people also compromised their theism in many ways, some more than others. I've never met anyone who didn't, and I've met some mighty strong believers.

So with that explanation, a secular worldview is one that recognizes that whatever one believes about a god, an afterlife, etc., the realities of the world are what govern how we behave in the world and among each other. There are gradations of this, all the way from a grudging acceptance of worldly realities to explicit non-theism.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52526

<purple emphasis added>

Is this explanation coherent?

If one is a theist or a deist, then isn't god one of the realities of the world?

Then Paul(?) reveals that, yes, deists and theists may possess a "secular world view" if they so much as exhibit a "grudging acceptance of worldly realities."

It seems to me that David Paszkiewicz qualifies as one with a "secular world view"--indeed, he seemed to grudgingly accept the worldly reality that getting fired from his job would result in hardship for his family.

Isn't this definition so broad as to be effectively meaningless?

After another digression,

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52566

Paul picked up with his defense of himself as "Guest."

Quoting from that post would be nearly pointless, since the answers cannot be adequately appreciated outside the context of the points to which Paul responded.

In short, Paul failed to address the inadequacies of the definition he (as "Guest") offered.

I responded to Paul's most recent on-topic offering here.

Now it's for Paul to try to address the problems, if he's able.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't thnk David Paszkiewicz would have any trouble identifying me as a secularist or in understanding what it means or in distinguishing between my world view and his. Bryan wouldn't either if he wasn't so intent on "winning" the argument point by excruciating point. I hope you'll get it one day, Bryan, because there really is a brain in there. Don't keep it buried under the muck forever.

Peace.

[Stixx3969]

Paul has yet to unequivocally describe the "secular world view" that supposedly won out when the Framers developed the Declaration of independence.

Since that was the point of the thread, I'll summarize Paul's participation thus far and reiterate the request that Paul reveal what is meant by "secular world view."

I didn't say deism is a secular world view. I merely corrected a comment about the religious beliefs of our Constitution's framers.

There was, however, a divide at the time of the Constitutional Convention between those who wanted to adopt an explicitly religious (theistic) Constitution and those who believed it best to separate church and state. The separatist view prevailed. That much is history. Slowly over time, incursions were made. "In God We Trust" on money, "under God" in the pledge, etc. However, the fact remains that under our laws the First Amendment coupled with the Fourteenth require religious neutrality by government.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51712

Paul's initial comment to the thread accentuated his confused view of the origins of the United States (In God We Trust" is an incursion; judicial expansion of the 14th Amendment apparently not an incursion). 

He talks about a "separatist" view that prevailed but stops short of saying that the separatist view is the "secular world view" to which he alluded.

No clear answer to the question as yet.

Paul's next post to the thread was ... off topic.

This is really an excellent point, one too few people pay attention to. God is what is ultimately real, not the symbols and images people call God. I think you're absolutely correct, Guest. Much of what passes for religion is instead idolatry.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52239

Paul appeared to take credit for this post by "Guest," which  comes pretty close to defining "secular world view"

The beauty of a truly religious Humanism is that there is no separation between life and religion. That is one of the reasons I believe it to be true. For me, religion is what I do every moment of my life, and if I do it right it permeates me and lifts me up and makes me a better person.

Secularism and theism are categories, but no one I've ever met or heard of is a pure theist. So while theism has a long history of many adherents, those same people also compromised their theism in many ways, some more than others. I've never met anyone who didn't, and I've met some mighty strong believers.

So with that explanation, a secular worldview is one that recognizes that whatever one believes about a god, an afterlife, etc., the realities of the world are what govern how we behave in the world and among each other. There are gradations of this, all the way from a grudging acceptance of worldly realities to explicit non-theism.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52526

<purple emphasis added>

Is this explanation coherent?

If one is a theist or a deist, then isn't god one of the realities of the world?

Then Paul(?) reveals that, yes, deists and theists may possess a "secular world view" if they so much as exhibit a "grudging acceptance of worldly realities."

It seems to me that David Paszkiewicz qualifies as one with a "secular world view"--indeed, he seemed to grudgingly accept the worldly reality that getting fired from his job would result in hardship for his family.

Isn't this definition so broad as to be effectively meaningless?

After another digression,

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52566

Paul picked up with his defense of himself as "Guest."

Quoting from that post would be nearly pointless, since the answers cannot be adequately appreciated outside the context of the points to which Paul responded.

In short, Paul failed to address the inadequacies of the definition he (as "Guest") offered.

I responded to Paul's most recent on-topic offering here.

Now it's for Paul to try to address the problems, if he's able.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geez! Give it a rest!

[Bryan]

I don't thnk David Paszkiewicz would have any trouble identifying me as a secularist or in understanding what it means or in distinguishing between my world view and his.

Mostly likely he wouldn't use Paul's definition, or Paszkiewicz himself would end up having a "secular world view" (as I've already pointed out).

Bryan wouldn't either if he wasn't so intent on "winning" the argument point by excruciating point.

Piffle. I'm just trying to work with the definition you offered.

For some reason you don't seem to think that it's important that Paszkiewicz has a secular world view according to the definition you gave me (as "Guest"). Moreover, it's ridiculous to claim that I'm trying to win any sort of argument with this particular point unless you know that you can't define your term so that it ends up making sense in the midst of your argument.

I hope you'll get it one day, Bryan, because there really is a brain in there. Don't keep it buried under the muck forever.

Peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there you have it yet again: instead of dealing with the issues, Paul spouts a few insults and bows out.