Posted on 01/24/2007 3:02:32 PM PST by Tim Long
Evolution is not "reality". It's speculation. What you are saying is you want my tax dollars to fund propaganda being shoved down the throats of my children to indoctrinate them to your viewpoint (and many scientists admitedly) because the childs minds are much more pliable when they are young. In other words -- brainwashing.
School reform or choice is really no different from our current system - it's just that different schools will emphasize various "career interests."
The only way to have education freedom is to allow private schools to compete equally with public schools and have vouchers. And please, allow these private schools to actually teach from a christian worldview!
Nah- just lurkin waiting for soem actual relevent discussion questions.
Thanks
Basically yeah- that's the bottom line. Good points.
I'm sure you have all the right answers queued up.
sorry about the run on there are some added comments towards the end that get lost in the runon.. format didn't transfer over well..
mainly secularism fits # 4 definition...
calls its self non-religion based on # 1....
They are still doing well in spite of free market competition and some complaints that they run too much in the foreground.
I understand that. But the argument that secularism and Christianity are both religions is an exercise in sophistry, easily demonstrated by the fact that the same definition of "religion" is not being applied to both.
I work in IT, and it's fairly common among programmers to speak of strict adherance to a particular programming methodology or structure as "religious". That doesn't mean that anyone went out and joined the Church of Python.
actually #4 can be applied to both, christianity and secularism fall under that definition.
you'll have to point where in ANY of the definition, require joining a "church".
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?
Seclorum actually means "of the ages". Not sure what that has to do with humanism (or black helecopters).
I didn't create this site nor did I title the forum, you will have to ask JR. precisely because of the ambiguity of the term, If it were my site I never have a "religion" forum.
I mean a term that can accurately include such mutually exclusive beliefs, such as belief that man is the highest authority/intellect, and one that God is the highest authority/intellect. hardly gets to the truth of the main premises.
Okay. Now, does every instance of the term "secular" meet that criteria?
Which of these definitions of "secular" are you asserting is the common usage, and implies a denial of God?
Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
1 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
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration
1a, when applied to premises behind politics and policies as I stated
worldly and temporal, man is highest authority/intellect,
religiously following a worldly and temporal premise seems to exclude "heavenly" and infinite.
so as not to distract,
better put "relying on worldly and temporal premise, implies an exclusion of "heavenly" and infinite
worldly and temporal, man is highest authority/intellect,
religiously following a worldly and temporal premise seems to exclude "heavenly" and infinite.
And you submit that in the political arena, when people make reference to "secular government", or describing any particular policy as "secular" they are using that definition and meaning, rather than b : not overtly or specifically religious ?
On what do you base this assertion, and on what basis do you amend the definition to make it explicitly theistic?
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..
its been fun must get going.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.