Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So now all Vladdo has to explain is why on earth he thinks that. As many theists actively support the secular state it's hard to imagine why he feels excluded from the same position.

Do they know what you have in mind though Hillside?
Well I support the secular state we have now where there are Lords spiritual and New Atheists and NSS are fringe. The BBC could respect and cater for it's Licence payers spiritual and it's mission to educate on matters religious a bit better contrary to NSS guffage on this matter.

[Nearly Sane]

Because the term state means public forum and the word church is the religious.
If you have different interpretations of those words lets here them now since you seem to be in denial over any problems with the interpretation of the term neutrality which I think deserves more attention than a ''pull yourselves together, religionists''.

That reads once again as if you are answering a completely different question. That said I would suggest your odd and bizarre definitions are unhelpful.

[bluehillside Retd.]

You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious.

Could we perhaps have a face palm emoji added to this mb? What kind of church would it be that isn’t religious I wonder? They’re synonymous FFS!

So for him then separation of church and state means exclusion of religious people from the state.

And the lies keep on coming…

…lest anyone be taken in by Vladdo’s latest mendacity what secularism actually entails is just the removal of access by right of the religious to the offices of state. Billy Graham could preach on the street corner or fill Wembley stadium as much as he liked (public fora). What he couldn’t do though was to determine by right the content of school science curricula, the guidelines of the NHS on issues like abortion etc.

And that's secularism.   

Another thing…

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that he can’t have “another thing” when his attempt at a first thing has just collapsed so abjectly.

…we have to challenge this wolfinsheepsclothingism on is where he gets offices of state from. Is he equating the state with the offices thereof? What does Mr Wolf consider the offices of state are?

NURSE! HE’S DOING IT AGAIN! NURSE!!!!!

[SusanDoris]

And your plan to maintain religious privilege isn't readily acceptable to all, is it?

Nor was getting rid of slavery, so  on the basis of your position above you would have opposed getting rid of that.

That's rubbish - probably one of those non sequiturs.

[Nearly Sane]

That's rubbish - probably one of those non sequiturs.

Well the first line is showing that your argument applies equally against your position so therefore isn't an argument for it.

And the second line is a  reductio. It points out that your argument can be used to justify a positiion you would disagree with therefore you are being logically inconsistent.

[Nearly Sane]

Could we perhaps have a face palm emoji added to this mb? What kind of church would it be that isn’t religious I wonder? They’re synonymous FFS!

I don't think it makes sense to say church/religious are synonymous. Is Rhiannon's paganism - church?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What a ridiculous statement.

An analogy:

I equate football teams with football supporters. So if I think that there should be a separation of Manchester United and the state, does that mean exclusion of Manchester United fans (let alone football supporters) from the state.

And of course the vast majority of people who claim to be religious aren't members of the CofE.

I think Hillside has made it quite clear on the grounds he thinks disqualify religious people from holding public office.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Hillside has made it quite clear on the grounds he thinks disqualify religious people from holding public office.

Does he?

Where has he said that being religious should disqualify someone from holding public office.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could we perhaps have a face palm emoji added to this mb? What kind of church would it be that isn’t religious I wonder? They’re synonymous FFS!

And the lies keep on coming…

…lest anyone be taken in by Vladdo’s latest mendacity what secularism actually entails is just the removal of access by right of the religious to the offices of state. Billy Graham could preach on the street corner or fill Wembley stadium as much as he liked (public fora). What he couldn’t do though was to determine by right the content of school science curricula, the guidelines of the NHS on issues like abortion etc.

And that's secularism.   

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that he can’t have “another thing” when his attempt at a first thing has just collapsed so abjectly.

NURSE! HE’S DOING IT AGAIN! NURSE!!!!!

Hopefully everyone has seen through this right?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does he?

Ask him.

[Anchorman]

I's (sort of) agree with bhs. If people wish to stand for public office, they should renounce any religious work they currently undertake. At the moment, only bishops in the CofE and clergypersons from NI can, apparently, take on both roles at the same time. The Kirk - and other Scottish Presbyterian churches, as well as the SEC, barrs their ordained ministers and vicars from being members of Parliament.

[Nearly Sane]

Ask him.

It's your statement that he has said it. Where?

[ProfessorDavey]

Ask him.

You made the claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't think it makes sense to say church/religious are synonymous. Is Rhiannon's paganism - church?

Is it religious? C’mon now, for the purpose of Vlad’s latest ludicrousness (“You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious”) of course there’s no problem with equating the two. If “synonymous” is insufficiently precise to deal with exceptions, “equated” with is unarguable I’d have thought.

Here’s the first online definition of “church” I found:     

noun

1.a building for public Christian worship.

2.public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.

3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.

4.(sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination:
the Methodist Church.

5.that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.

6.a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: She is a member of this church.

7.ecclesiastical organization, power, and affairs, as distinguished from the state:separation of church and state; The missionary went wherever the church sent him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What he couldn’t do though was to determine by right the content of school science curricula, the guidelines of the NHS on issues like abortion etc.

How can 26 Lords do that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

I think Hillside has made it quite clear on the grounds he thinks disqualify religious people from holding public office.

In which Vladdo continues his old practice of quote doctoring - in this case by conveniently removing the "by right" at the end.

[ProfessorDavey]

In which Vladdo continues his old practice of quote doctoring - in this case by conveniently removing the "by right" at the end.

BHS - apparently it is my job to ask you (heaven knows why).

So perhaps you could confirm please:

Do you think that being religious should disqualify someone from holding public office?

I suspect a single word answer will suffice (maybe even just 2 letters).

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Is it religious? C’mon now, for the purpose of Vlad’s latest ludicrousness (“You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious”) of course there’s no problem with equating the two. If “synonymous” is insufficiently precise to deal with exceptions, “equated” with is unarguable I’d have thought.

Here’s the first online definition of “church” I found:     

noun

1.a building for public Christian worship.

2.public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.

3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.

4.(sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination:
the Methodist Church.

5.that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.

6.a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: She is a member of this church.

7.ecclesiastical organization, power, and affairs, as distinguished from the state:separation of church and state; The missionary went wherever the church sent him.

Don't see where that addresses the issue that there are religious people for which none of that fits. Church is surely about institution as opposed to what an individual is?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Does he?

No.

I did essay some thoughts a while back about the desirability of, say, an end of times proponent having access to the nuclear codes or a PM praying for guidance about whether to got war (and acting on it) but Vlad's foursquare in misrepresentation territory again.

No doubt he'll apologise in his next post though...

...or perhaps not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

BHS - apparently it is my job to ask you (heaven knows why).

So perhaps you could confirm please:

Do you think that being religious should disqualify someone from holding public office?

I suspect a single word answer will suffice (maybe even just 2 letters).

I'll even do it as an anagram for you: ON.

Vlad just made that up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's your statement that he has said it. Where?

Reply #693

[ProfessorDavey]

Ask him.

I have.

He has indicated clearly that he doesn't think that being religious should disqualify someone from holding public office.

I suggest you owe him the courtesy of an apology and for you to retract your assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have.

He has indicated clearly that he doesn't think that being religious should disqualify someone from holding public office.

I suggest you owe him the courtesy of an apology and for you to retract your assertion.

Bollocks!

[ProfessorDavey]

Reply #693

No he didn't.

[Nearly Sane]

Reply #693

 

You mean this - that doesn't say that


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15210.675