Mayor Adams says God told him he’d lead NYC, asked him to publicly proclaim faith

[tirwin1]

Not sure what a "zealously secular government" is, but we certainly dodged a bullet by living in a country that wasn't founded on religion, no matter how hard the right tries to shoehorn it.

Women subservient to men? That's a 180 degree no from me Dawg.

I interpret "zealously secular government" as one that is hostile to religion. Here is an example:

 

[prambo]

Almost 20% of this thread has been spent arguing/discussing/whatever with a member that was assured to show up the minute the "G-word" was mentioned.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

 

[Darth]

They can be, because you are trying to separate belief and knowledge in a way that's impossible.

If you believe something, you inherently believe that you know it.

So, you can be agnostic (i.e. you believe that you don't know), but you can't then also be a theist or atheist. You can't simultaneously believe it and not believe that you know it. The concept is absurd.

And it really is your (and a few other people like you) version. Just like the "pregnant men", the vast majority of people recognize that they are wrong, regardless of what they think.


Your link itself describes outsiders as "non believers" LOL.

It's very simple, either you are 100% certain that God exists/doesn't exist, or you are uncertain.

If you aren't 100% certain, then it's irrelevant whether you lean towards exists or not exists, you simply do not have the sort of unconditional "belief" that faith requires.

That means those are the only 3 possible categories, which correspond to the common definitions of theist, atheist, and agnostic.

The fact that you have some weird group who want to pretend there is a 4th option doesn't change either reality, or the fact that the vast majority of people do not use those terms in the way you are suggesting.

I guess the APA is wrong.

But it may be. To then claim the basic laws of binary logic are also wrong is a step too far for me I'm afraid.

 

[Darth]

I interpret "zealously secular government" as one that is hostile to religion. Here is an example:

Considering the separation of church and state is fairly clearly laid out in our constitution and they are violating that, it's a bit of a stretch to claim anything zealous.

 

[Darth]

Almost 20% of this thread has been spent arguing/discussing/whatever with a member that was assured to show up the minute the "G-word" was mentioned.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Discussing the absurdity of people claiming they got a message from God, in a thread about the absurdity of someone claiming they got a message from God. Outrageous I tells ya.

I am sorry you were forced to not only click, but to post in this thread however.

 

[spat]

Considering the separation of church and state is fairly clearly laid out in our constitution and they are violating that, it's a bit of a stretch to claim anything zealous.

Our Constitution doesn't specify separation of church and state.

It forbids the state from even recognizing religion as anything different than any other activity.

So it explicitly *forbids* explicitly banning religion on government property. To ban religious material as such you need to define it. If you are forbidden from passing laws about "establishment of religion", then you can't pass laws that establish what material is religious to ban.

Properly interpreted the constitution doesn't ban prayer in school for instance. It bans a school from recognizing prayer as anything different than any other speech. If you would allow a coach to make a speech praising diversity before a game, then you need to let him pray just the same.

Attempting to force government to adopt your religion by use the loophole that it doesn't have a diety is disingenuous. Zealots are dangerous regardless of what religion they are promoting.

 

[spat]

I guess the APA is wrong.

But it may be. To then claim the basic laws of binary logic are also wrong is a step too far for me I'm afraid.

Just explain how you can believe something without knowing it, or know it without believing it.

Note that we are using "believe" in the sense of a deeply held religions conviction, not in the "I guess".

There is a big difference between the use of the word in "I believe in god" and "I believe it will rain tomorrow".

 

[Darth]

Just explain how you can believe something without knowing it, or know it without believing it.

Note that we are using "believe" in the sense of a deeply held religions conviction, not in the "I guess".

There is a big difference between the use of the word in "I believe in god" and "I believe it will rain tomorrow".

"Explain how my improper understanding of belief differs from my improper understanding of knowledge. Again, because the source you posted last time, we're just going to ignore that because it doesn't fit my definitions."

 

[Darth]

Our Constitution doesn't specify separation of church and state.

It forbids the state from even recognizing religion as anything different than any other activity.

So it explicitly *forbids* explicitly banning religion on government property. To ban religious material as such you need to define it. If you are forbidden from passing laws about "establishment of religion", then you can't pass laws that establish what material is religious to ban.

Properly interpreted the constitution doesn't ban prayer in school for instance. It bans a school from recognizing prayer as anything different than any other speech. If you would allow a coach to make a speech praising diversity before a game, then you need to let him pray just the same.

Attempting to force government to adopt your religion by use the loophole that it doesn't have a diety is disingenuous. Zealots are dangerous regardless of what religion they are promoting.

Actually it does specify it. It's made crystal clear government cannot involve themselves with the establishment of any religion because, de facto, you can't support one in any way without detracting from another. This is the exact reason the framers wooded it as such.

 

[spat]

Actually it does specify it. It's made crystal clear government cannot involve themselves with the establishment of any religion because, de facto, you can't support one in any way without detracting from another. This is the exact reason the framers wooded it as such.

Yes, they are forbidden in meddling in the establishment of religion.

Which logically means they don't get to determine what is religious and what is secular. Making a list of "religious things" is the very definition of a law regarding the establishment of religion.

 

[Robin]

Huh, God told me Eric Adams is a racist idiot and the whole voting system in NYC is rigged. Son of a gun.
Robin

 

[spat]

"Explain how my improper understanding of belief differs from my improper understanding of knowledge. Again, because the source you posted last time, we're just going to ignore that because it doesn't fit my definitions."

It does seem like you have some improper understanding.

You don't even appear able to articulate what you think the difference is.

 

[Acer-m14]

Separation of Church and State ..

hummmm ..

makes me think of why the F .. do we have to get a Marriage License from the State Then ..


Ohhhhh

so you enter into a contract with the State and now they have control of your offspring ..

 

[spat]

Separation of Church and State ..

hummmm ..

makes me think of why the F .. do we have to get a Marriage License from the State Then ..


Ohhhhh

so you enter into a contract with the State and now they have control of your offspring ..

The mistake the sovereign citizens make is thinking that there is some legal loophole that will get them freedom.

There isn't, and if there was, why would ypu expect the people in charge to honor it anyway ?

The contract you have with the state is the same one you have with a mugger. You do what they say or they will murder you. The only loophole is the 2A where you kill them first.