Evolution battles caused by politically powerful

WorldNetDaily ^ | January 24, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern | Bob Unruh

[editor-surveyor]

Better check your latin text again.

[tacticalogic]

by the actions and words of those that claim to be secular, they adhere to a system of belief that preaches the exclution of a heavenly and infinite authority from having any authority over policies and politics..

I understand what you're trying to do, but it isn't going to work. "Secular" means "not overtly religious". You want to make a failure to explicitly affirm the existence of God an implicit denial of His existence. That will make "not overtly religious" overtly religious. You want to destroy the historically accepted meaning of the word in order to re-define it to mean "atheistic" to help advance a political agenda. That you have to resort to that kind of tactic is enough to oppose that agenda and that you're willing to is enough to oppose you, just on principle.

its been fun must get going.

Good.

[stormer]

"Better check your latin (sic) text again."

Well,

from NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM – Origin and Meaning
of the Motto Beneath the American Pyramid, http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html

"'Novus Ordo Seclorum' was the motto suggested in 1782 by Charles Thomson, the Founding Father chosen by the Continental Congress to come up with the final design for the Great Seal of the United States...

Translating NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM

Novus means: new, young, novel.
Ordo means: row, series, order.
Seclorum means: of the ages, of the generations, of the centuries.

An accurate translation of Novus Ordo Seclorum is 'A New Order of the Ages,' but the meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original context."

or perhaps from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum

"Novus Ordo Seclorum

Reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. The phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum (Latin for 'New Order of the Ages') appears on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States, first designed in 1782 and printed on the back of the American dollar bill since 1935. It also appears on the coat of arms of the Yale School of Management, Yale University's business school. It is often mistranslated as 'New World Order', but the Latin for that phrase would be Novus Ordo Mundi."


and again here at Etymology Online,
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Novus+Ordo+Seclorum


"Novus Ordo Seclorum
on the Great Seal of the United States of America, is apparently an allusion to line 5 of Virgil's 'Eclogue IV,' in an 18c. edition: Magnus ab integro seclorum nasitur ordo 'The great series of ages begins anew.' The seal's designer, Charles Thomson, wrote that the words "signify the beginnings of the New American Era.' (see Annuit Coeptis)."

I think you better check your own text.

[editor-surveyor]

In other words, not what you originally posted.

Of the generations comes closest to a culturally correct translation.

[stormer]

"In other words, not what you originally posted."

You may wish to refer to post #72 in order to refresh your memory. Allow me to quote myself: "Seclorum actually means 'of the ages'."

If we now refer to the more recent post in which I have presented a number of references, e.g.,

http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html: "An accurate translation of Novus Ordo Seclorum is 'A New Order of the Ages,'..."

or, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum: "...Latin for 'New Order of the Ages'..."

and again at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Novus+Ordo+Seclorum: "Magnus ab integro seclorum nasitur ordo 'The great series of ages begins anew.'"

we find that this is exactly what I've posted. Perhaps you've confused me with another or just don't like being shown to be incorrect, either way, I'll stand by my original statement.

[Dog Gone]

I guess I'm the only one who sees this article as a rationale for school vouchers, not an article about evolution vs creation.

By the way, I love your graphic showing the little kid feeding the aptosaurus. It's almost as good as the one of Jesus riding the dinosaur. Good stuff.

[Tim Long]

Well at least you didn't say brontosaurus.

[Old Professer]

Crock Pot is more like it.

[flevit]

no only explaining that when policies or politics overtly mentions the "heavenly" and infinite, it no longer by definition is secular, I understand that secular can be an observation, like its sunny out, its a "secular" government.

[tacticalogic]

no only explaining that when policies or politics overtly mentions the "heavenly" and infinite, it no longer by definition is secular, I understand that secular can be an observation, like its sunny out, its a "secular" government.

Your argument still amounts to a claim that "not overtly religious" is overtly religious, simply by having made a reference to religion. Your definition and the commonly accepted definition of "secular" cannot co-exist. They are mutually exclusive and contradictory.

[flevit]

when secularism is advocated as such to adhere to defintion # 4 of religion, there is no reason why it shouldn't be refered to as such.

"the belief of the unbeliever", opperates in the same litterary oxymoronic manner.

[tacticalogic]

when secularism is advocated as such to adhere to defintion # 4 of religion, there is no reason why it shouldn't be refered to as such.

As I said earlier:

So do a great many other things, as demonstrated by the example I provided. Are you prepared to deal with the consequences of making anything that would fit that description a "religion" for the purposes of this debate, including the legal and constitutional issues involving "religion"? Will you submit that all of these things have a legitimate place in, and deserve equal treatment in the Religion forum on this board?

When you say that secularism is just as much of a religion as Christianity, are you using the same definition of religion in both instances? If not then you are engaged in the dishonest practice of sophistry.

[flevit]

the use/context of how "religion" is used in either this site or the constitution is irrelevant to whether "secularism" is religion #4 or not.

the religion (#4) of the non-religious (#1)
the belief of the non-believer

fit far more accurately under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

[tacticalogic]

the use/context of how "religion" is used in either this site or the constitution is irrelevant to whether "secularism" is religion #4 or not.

It is if you're going to draw parallels between secularism and Christianity (or any other Constitutionally protected religion). If "secularism" is just as much of a "religion" as Christianity (both being religions by virtue of #4) then by your account Chrisitianity is no more or less of a religion than an ardent belief in supply-side economics, homeopathic medicine, astrology, or any number of other "beliefs" that people may have, and no more entitled to Constitutional protection than any of them. You can't have it both ways.

[tacticalogic]

the religion (#4) of the non-religious (#1)

Pure sophistry. No more oxymoronic than talking about the constitution (physical makeup) of an anti-constitutionalist (someone opposed to a constitutional form of government).

[colorado tanker]

Cato chose a poor issue on which to base the argument, but choice is the only way out of the public school mess, IMHO.

[flevit]

I was not a founding father, and we would have to best determine whether in context they used religion as a #1 or #4,

a litterary oxymoronic statement of "religion (#4) of the non-religous (#1)" is completely irrelevant to the use and intention of the founding fathers use of the same word "religion".

[tacticalogic]

If that's the context you're trying to argue it in, why are you doing it as a "news and activism" debate on a political forum? Why do you submit an argument in that context and then protest when the terms are interpreted to have meanings that would make it politically relevant?

Are you prepared to argue that the Constitutional protections on freedom of religion are to be broadly interpreted as protecting anything that would fall into the fourth definition of "religious"?

[flevit]

I already said, I would look to see the intent/context founding father most likely used...

it can still be political/news/activism all the while being completely independant of the founding fathers intent of "religion"

I only maintain that religion has definitions that can be juxtaposed to bring attention to the zeal and fanaticism of those that actively seek to eliminate mention of a "heavenly and the infinite" authority, from the "worldly and temporal" authority.

seems fitting under activism???

[3Lean]

Can you clarify this.
1. You say that Cato was wrong when they stated that monopolies can only develop when there is government intervention.
2. You say the proof of them being wrong is the radio industry, which is very highly regulated (no federal license, no radio station).

I don't think that the state of radio ownership today is proof that monopolies can develop in the absence of government intervention.