The difference between Secular and Religious:

I read about this a couple days ago and didn't really pay much attention. I saw it as to be expected. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/07/christianity-crucifying-the-constitution/I see this as a major difference between secular groups and religious ones. Secular groups do NOT try and institute their ways into law/society, whereas religious groups (as we have seen time and time again) DO actively try and force their beliefs on the rest of us. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair

Hooah, this is probably the most inane thing you've written to date. Of course secular interests are introduced in to society. The entirety of the US Constitution, which is the foundational basis for ALL of its laws, is secular.The only relevant question is whether or not it's a bad thing, of which I don't think that it is.This is just more of you declaring your jihad on religion. If you're not careful you're going to become the very thing you fear -- an oppressive, monopolistic regime that demands that everyone conform to the way it wants you to think.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Perhaps I should have chosen my words a tad more carefully. Here: better? Find me something newsworthy about a secular group doing something similar and I will gladly post that and chastise them as well. I asked Buz the same, but to date, no one has provided anything and I have yet to see anything of the sort come across my desk. Ahh, right. So, it's "monopolistic" and "oppressive" to be point out groups who preach love and peace, but practice hate? Explain to me, Buz..er I mean Hyro, how can secular = oppressive? Do I need to post the definition of secular again? Is it not exactly the opposite of oppressive?You know, as soon as I posted this, I figured I would get a response like this.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair

No. Secular groups have and do try and force their views on society. They forced through freedom of religion, push for an end to discrimination on the basis of religion, agitate for women's reproductive rights, and so forth and so on.

Not really. What does "by force" even mean? Who passes legislation through force? We're not talking about a coup d'etat where people storm the gates in America. 1. The problem is that you're looking at this at an angle that is too simplistic.
2. You're also creating a false dichotomy.You are making it as if there are only two opposing sides who are mutually exclusive, which is not necessarily the case. You are partitioning people per class, secularists on one side of the spectrum and religious individuals on the other, and tacitly insisting that they have differing opinions in every instance.A large portion of people that consider themselves "religious" agree that secular forms of government are appropriate. They even cite the bible as reference (render unto Caesar what is Caesars) Not all religious people want to set up a theocracy. In fact, it's a relatively small minority that do.Secondly, not all secularists think religion is necessarily a problem at the root level. Rather they feel that certain groups, within a gigantic sea of religion, want to set up some theocratic form of government where Allah or Jesus or whoever runs the show, and the Clergy does the dirty work of enforcing God's law.That minority does not represent either religion as a whole or secularism as a whole. This is some bizarre fantasy you have of absolute good (secularists) and absolute evil (religionists) are always at odds with one another. You shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house! Does that clarify? You being hateful towards religion as a whole, because they're allegedly hateful, is hypocritical. An eye for an eye makes us all blind" -- Ghandi My god, man. You really love to assume a lot. Where in the fuck did I say that secular = oppressive? I'm saying that you are being oppressive. You don't get to set yourself up as king of secularists and speak on behalf of secularism, sorry. As a secularist myself, I insist that you allow all to live and let live (a secularist belief, btw).You keep viewing this in absolute terms. Get some perspective. There are people, both secular and religious, who under their ideology want to repress others with differing opinions (you unfortunately seem to fit comfortably in that category).However, within this massive sea of secularists and religionists, they for the most part don't mix their politics with their (ir)religion. It's just not even an issue.You seem very hyperfocused on all things religion and demonize it every chance you get, yet you get upset when they do the same of atheist. I'll be right there with calling their bullshit card, but when you do the same fucking thing in reverse, it kind of invalidates your point, no?!?!If you'd like to narrow it down to the specific groups or individuals who are actually doing it, then by all means knock yourself out. But as of now you are making sweeping allegations, broad generalizations, and painting with an awfully big brush. The first sensible thing you've said all day

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I thought any readers would grasp that I was, in fact, NOT generalizing. It seems as though you choose to pick apart my exact wording and take it out of context of the topic. Of course I am fully aware that the entirety of religion is not to blame. However, this topic is not about the religious people who practice in their own homes and keep it to themselves. THEY aren't the problem. I really don't see it as being hateful. Have I yet to say "Fuck you religion. Trod off and die all of you"? So sorry if I see this as a problem. Ahh, right. So again, my viewpoint that there should be freedom for a secular group to speak to the president, as countless religious ones have, is oppressive. I'm beginning to gather you don't follow the news and have no clue who Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin are, and you also don't realize that they have amassed quite the following comprised mainly of the exact sort of person I am referring to. The groups....they aren't as small and powerless as you think. There are quite a few people who actually think that dumb broad is fit to lead this country, and that Glenn Beck is actually an intellectual, that he isn't a blabbering lunatic. Funny, I could have sworn that this site was somewhat about religion. I guess I mixed that up. Here is where I come with these....rantings..if you will because a) I work too much to have friends outside of work and b) my g/f and people in my family are christians. It just seems as though I am "hyperfocused" and "demonizing" because I have the attention span of a gnat and while I do enjoy science, I am not smart enough to bring up sensible topics on anything. You can see my failed attempt at it on my music and chimps thread which bombed. Sue me. The difference is Hyro, I am not the hypocrite here. No where did I say that the religious groups who stood against the meetings didn't have a right to do so. I pointed out the one track-mindedness and hypocrisy of them doing it.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair

Given the amount of airplay similar topics surface with you as the originating poster and given that you don't offer any distinguishing terms, there is little else to deduce. The people's perception of what you say has a lot to do with the way you express your opinions. Well neither did Hitler or Stalin and we see how that turned out No, what I've already addressed was an expression of oppression. And I'm sure these two would say the same of you in reference to, say, Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi. What's exactly is your point? Yeah, and there are people that actually think that Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi are inverse, agenda-driven monsters you think Palin and Beck are. What's your point? Because all I see is a smear thread. Is there an actual point to the conversation? Look, you're entitled to make whatever thread you want. I'm entitled to question what exactly about it disturbs you so much and to remind you that it's not as black and white as perhaps you'd like it. Must be more of my predilections for the mindless middle. If you'll allow me to read between the lines, what I see is you saying that you don't like Christians to have a voice because they say things you don't like. That's fine, but be realistic, as if secular humanists don't also have a voice.Pretty much all of Europe is secular, with a few minor pockets of resistance, if you will. Asia is pretty much the same way. Christianity is on its way out. Its relevance to people's lives declines every day. Look how impotent the mighty Vatican is today and compare it to the strangehold it once had on Europe. It's a dying relic of the past that is struggling for its own survival. Between the modern problem of extremist Islam and Reason crushing Christianity, it will all but become another dead religion in the distant future. Just like it beat out Mithraism, Islam or Reason will likely bury it.Surely you've seen my debates on religion. Surely you've seen me pick apart, piece by piece, one religious dogma after another. I don't exactly find parity with the religious bunch. The thing is, I don't see it as an enemy to be vanquished either. Unlike Dawkins, I see religion in some ways being very beneficial to society. It keeps a lot of people in line and content. Who am I to stand in their way of happiness? Now, it is true that you have the extremists and the people who try and set up theocracies. I say deal with them as they come, because it is not worth losing an potential ally against them.And there is another good reason, a reason that is lost on so many Christians now or days. They aren't trying to win converts to Christ, they're trying to win an argument. If their goal, especially at EvC, is to fill heaven with the souls of backsliders and pagans, they're doing a shitty job.In the same way, what do you think someone on the cusp of leaving Christianity is going to do if the big, bad atheists come along and attack? It will galvanize them and reinforce in their minds that atheists are just hateful, lost, and in desperate need of God.Why give them that angle?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston