What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[ippy]

Not all religionists but quite al lot of you it seems to me really don't like secularism, why's that?

Please explain?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not all religionists but quite al lot of you it seems to me really don't like secularism, why's that?

Please explain?

ippy

The Stalinist antireligion agenda of the NSS and BHS.

[Shaker]

As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.

We understand what you and Ippy mean by secularism all too well.

[Shaker]

Exceedingly unlikely. If that had been true you wouldn't have dipped straight into Vlad's Bumper Book of Religiose Tripe Tropes for yet more meaningless, content-free rhetoric.

[BashfulAnthony]

As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.

Vlad may have proved to you that he doesn't know;  but pretty presumptuous to include every theist in that.  Unless you have some mysterious poll to quote from.  It's very easy to look it up.

[Shaker]

I wasn't aware that I had "included every theist in that."

[BashfulAnthony]

I wasn't aware that I had "included every theist in that."

"All of them. " So many of them."  Which ever:  still wonder how you would know either?

[Shaker]

"All of them. " So many of them."  Which ever:  still wonder how you would know either?

1. Where did I write "all of them"? (Clue: I didn't). Don't try and wave it aside with "which ever"; you made a silly assumption, presumably based on a sloppy reading of a short post, so have the minerals to admit it.

2. Experience - experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means, conflating it, as does Vlad, with secular humanism or atheism or agnosticism or suchlike (or rather, in his case, anti-theism and "Stalinism" and whatever other daft wibble he comes out with).

[BashfulAnthony]

"All of them. " So many of them."  Which ever:  still wonder how you would know either?

1. Where did I write "all of them"? (Clue: I didn't). Don't try and wave it aside with "which ever"; you made a silly assumption, presumably based on a sloppy reading of a short post, so have the minerals to admit it.

2. Experience - experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means, conflating it, as does Vlad, with secular humanism or atheism or agnosticism or suchlike.

You posted: "As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem."   Your'e simply trying to obscure the fact that you made a silly assumption, which you cannot conceivably justify.  Admit you are wrong, just for once in your life.

[Shaker]

You posted: "As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem."   Your'e simply trying to obscure the fact that you made a silly assumption, which you cannot conceivably justify.  Admit you are wrong, just for once in your life.

I'm glad you quoted that, because it demonstrates that you did in fact see that I wrote "some of them" and not "every theist" as you claimed in #5.

My comment is based on the number of theists I've seen misunderstand secularism in a wide variety of different forums over a good many years.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"All of them. " So many of them."  Which ever:  still wonder how you would know either?

1. Where did I write "all of them"? (Clue: I didn't). Don't try and wave it aside with "which ever"; you made a silly assumption, presumably based on a sloppy reading of a short post, so have the minerals to admit it.

2. Experience - experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means, conflating it, as does Vlad, with secular humanism or atheism or agnosticism or suchlike.

you'll find at the moment that it is the NSS and BHS who are confusing secularism with secular humanism or atheism and agnosticism or such like. So when Ippy starts of about secularism, we know the 'record' and can hum along with it.

[BashfulAnthony]

You posted: "As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem."   Your'e simply trying to obscure the fact that you made a silly assumption, which you cannot conceivably justify.  Admit you are wrong, just for once in your life.

I'm glad you quoted that, because it demonstrates that you did in fact see that I wrote "some of them" and not "every theist" as you claimed in #5.

My comment is based on the number of theists I've seen misunderstand secularism in a wide variety of different forums over a good many years.

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle!  You made a daft comment  -  admit it?

How do you find the time, what with reading the world's literature?  Wonder if you've ever had time to work?  And it matters not to say you base it on the number of theists you've encountered on forums: how many would that be out of the millions?

[Shaker]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle!  You made a daft comment  -  admit it?

How do you find the time, what with reading the world's literature?

Good time management I guess. 

Wonder if you've ever had time to work?

Of course.

And it matters not to say you base it on the number of theists you've encountered on forums: how many would that be out of the millions?

No idea, but then I didn't specify any proportion, I simply said "so many."

[BashfulAnthony]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle!  You made a daft comment  -  admit it?

How do you find the time, what with reading the world's literature?

Good time management I guess. 

Wonder if you've ever had time to work?

Of course.

And it matters not to say you base it on the number of theists you've encountered on forums: how many would that be out of the millions?

No idea, but then I didn't specify any proportion, I simply said "so many."

Whatever you said, it was quite meaningless.  Why can't you accept that?

You're not being a good example to Lenny, who may well be monitoring this as he makes his cocoa.

[Shaker]

Because it isn't.

I reiterated ippy's statement as made in the OP, to wit: "Not all religionists but quite al lot of you." Very noticeable that you haven't been badgering him.

[Shaker]

Back to the scheduled thread: I suspect that another reason why so many religionists are unhappy with secularism is because it places their own religion (which surely by definition for the individual religionist must be The Truth) alongside all other religions on equal terms, making it merely one belief occupying a level platform with other beliefs. If your belief system has enshrined within itself statements that it and it alone is the absolute truth, to have to occupy the public forum with other belief systems (which needless to say make precisely the same claim and have the same pretensions to exclusivity) treated precisely equally can only be rather galling to say the least.

[jeremyp]

"All of them. " So many of them."  Which ever:  still wonder how you would know either?

1. Where did I write "all of them"? (Clue: I didn't). Don't try and wave it aside with "which ever"; you made a silly assumption, presumably based on a sloppy reading of a short post, so have the minerals to admit it.

2. Experience - experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means, conflating it, as does Vlad, with secular humanism or atheism or agnosticism or suchlike.

you'll find at the moment that it is the NSS and BHS who are confusing secularism with secular humanism or atheism and agnosticism or such like. So when Ippy starts of about secularism, we know the 'record' and can hum along with it.

You might be right in that, but it's better than confusing secularism with Stalinism as you do.

[BashfulAnthony]

Because it isn't.

I reiterated ippy's statement as made in the OP, to wit: "Not all religionists but quite al lot of you." Very noticeable that you haven't been badgering him.

I picked you out because you attempt to portray yourself and your comments as inviolable.  But you are as inclined as any other, to make errors:  you just cannot bring yourself to admit it.

And the above was an equally meaningless comment.  But then ippy is like that.

[jeremyp]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle!  You made a daft comment  -  admit it?

What on Earth is the point of this?  You are blatantly in the wrong here and it's completely obvious to anybody who can read.  Why don't you pretend you have some balls and simply admit t you made a mistake?  "So many" is not the same as "all".  Many of us know that.

[BashfulAnthony]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle!  You made a daft comment  -  admit it?

What on Earth is the point of this?  You are blatantly in the wrong here and it's completely obvious to anybody who can read.  Why don't you pretend you have some balls and simply admit t you made a mistake?  "So many" is not the same as "all".  Many of us know that.

Semantics!  He made a statement which it is impossible to justify. Don't say you are just as blinkered!

[Shaker]

you'll find at the moment that it is the NSS and BHS who are confusing secularism with secular humanism or atheism and agnosticism or such like.

What leads you to that opinion (he asked hopefully)? On the NSS website I found the following:

About the National Secular Society

The National Secular Society works towards a society in which all citizens, regardless of religious belief, or lack of religious belief, can live together fairly and cohesively. We campaign for a secular democracy with a separation of religion and state, where everyone's Human Rights are respected equally.

which is a pretty good capsule definition of secularism as far as it goes in so short a space. On the BHA (not BHS ... that's British Home Stores) website there's this:

We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief.

No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.

Perhaps it only exists in your head, Vlad.

[jeremyp]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle!  You made a daft comment  -  admit it?

What on Earth is the point of this?  You are blatantly in the wrong here and it's completely obvious to anybody who can read.  Why don't you pretend you have some balls and simply admit t you made a mistake?  "So many" is not the same as "all".  Many of us know that.

Semantics!  He made a statement which it is impossible to justify. Don't say you are just as blinkered!

No.  You made a statement that is impossible to justify when you conflated "so many" with "all". Now you are on the attack because you know you were wrong, but you're not big enough to admit it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.

Don't be so stupid.....what a piss take.

[ippy]

Not all religionists but quite al lot of you it seems to me really don't like secularism, why's that?

Please explain?

ippy

The Stalinist antireligion agenda of the NSS and BHS.

I note you are one of those people that seem unabe to understand the principles of secularism, like for example: "freedom of religion for all and freedom from religion", please explain how this infringes on any of your rights to hold or express any belief you may have?

Even with my own personal view of religion where it seems a bit potty,  just because it's not my cup of tea doesn't make me want to send out any kind of inquisition against religionists nor would it be right for the non-religious to have any more say or privilege than any religious believing citizen in the running of our nation or visa versa; that's secularism, seriously where does Starlinism come into that Woo?

lppy