Separation of Church and State

Still slinging your skewed version of history I see. What a sham... I mean shame. 1) Why does it have to be by a clergy? I'm about to have a laughing fit as I seem to remember you supporting the idea that Islam wants to create a theocracy here and many Islamic states are theocracies. Technically they don't have clergy and indeed mirror in a rather specific way what you just denied counted as a theocracy in England.2) Lets say for sake of argument that the colonies were not theocracies. Whatever they were then, the founding fathers did NOT WANT THEM LIKE THAT. They specifically put in language to remove the kinds of religious connivance within govt that they had seen within the colonies. Can you at least agree on that?3) The enlightenment had a direct effect on the formation of our nation. You seem to be saying the bill of rights and seculat govt and that kind of stuff came from Xian influence... where did any such Xians get those ideas? It is pretty well known that the enlightenment allowed Xians the ability to study preXian concepts, and then formulate some new ideas not permitted within the Xian box. Democracy and a secular govt were not Xian concepts, even if some Xians went on to use them.Here's a big clue. When a singular religion conquers an area for a really long time and converts everyone on pain of death so that all are at least nominally that religion, whatever those people do after they start splintering cannot simply be attributed to what religion they happen to popularly call themselves.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-05-2005 06:24 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, everything you say is NOT basic historical fact and is controversial. I am not saying that everything you say is wrong, but there are portions which are clearly not factually correct, and then you distort the reality of some truths to draw an inaccurate conclusion. The revisionism I have suggested you are engaging in is to make the founding of our nation a Xian movement, rather than a political one which happened to involve Xians.In fact I see you didn't deal, yet again, with a recurring blur you use regarding nominal categorization and causation.But let's get some misunderstandings out of the way... I'm not sure what you think the Enlightenment is, how long it lasted, and who it effected. Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry on the Age of Enlightenment. I would suggest reading it.I will admit to using the broad definition of Enlightenment which does not split it from the Age of Reason. If you used the narrower definition and that led to some confusion then I apologize. However, it cannot explain all of the issues.So let's get this straight. I have always said that the founding fathers were a product and exemplars of the Enlightenment, not the alpha and omega of it. It existed long before they were born and they took things from what others did. In fact I KNOW that I have described their taking things from people that came before them.There were certainly local concepts and practices of separating church and state functions before the US constitution. I'm not sure where you would have gotten that I would not have believed this. The problem for me as having attributed the rise of such concepts to something outside the Enlightenment.Changes occured within religion during this age as well. The fact that the same scripture was used on all sides of the debate is what rather explicitly shows how it was not the Xianity of any movement which was important, but rather the explicit doctrines themselves which were important.Ironically many "innovative" ideas which you now which to attribute to Xian thinking stemmed from a re-awakening to ancient concepts, through availability of ancient texts which had been repressed and forgotten under Xian domination.Can you agree with this or not? That is an intriguing way to put it. Essentially all points are correct. They were moving away from how things were done, AND they were enshrining freedoms that many Americans had come to expect. This is not an inconsistent statement.It appears I am taking a long view, which is what they stated they had been using, of the development of the colonies and govts in general, while you are using a very short term view.They WERE men of their time. That did not make how they pulled many varied concepts together into one solid document for a lasting NATIONAL govt any less genius and inspirational. There was and still is a question of whether the Constitution could bar what local state govts could do in the same way as the fed govt. From their own writings it seems that they were for that to some degree, and were not for state religion of any kind (local or federal). That the Bill of Rights did not immediately effect any particular state laws already in place, would not have suggested that it could not. Democracy didn't "come from" the Greeks, but yes that was one of the first, the largest, and well documented democracies. Unfortunately not everyone knew about this. How could most people know about this when such books were often banned, if in fact they could be obtained logistically at all?The dark ages were not modern times, but with lower tech. Xians had a major chokehold on knowledge and its spread within Europe. They allowed some greek thought out, but not things which would be ruinous. Not to the public that is for sure.That is why Islam was one of the best sources of preservation of greek thought and also had some forms of public law, and democracy, before the Xian nations. That is not true at all. The vision was that Jesus would be King. It was not going to be a democracy and it most certainly was going to be God's kingdom on earth. There is very little separation in that.If you mean to say that some Xians looking to justify their changing political beliefs, reinterpreted some statements of Jesus previously held to mean something else, then that would be true. Ahem... who else was there? The people who were not considered Xian and called for the same thing had long been KILLED BY XIANS. So let us address this again.Xians kill or convert all those with differing religions making EVERYONE a NOMINAL XIAN. This original Xian group removes any concept of democracy. It operates in absolutes and divine right.Then people start disagreeing and wanting to return, or rediscover the utility of, past ways of doing things. And in the case of separation of church and state specifically discover the utility of being able to have free thought of any kind if church is ousted from civil controls.Given the history of that culture where everyone had to be Xian, makes the fact that a Xian did anything a moot point. Xians were on ALL SIDES of ALL DEBATES. Thus it is the nature of the debate which makes it important. This was a political issue, not theological.And its funny that in all that discussion of history you still refuse to state where some of these people got their ideas!The enlightenment era was a process of discovery and increased use or reliance on rationality, over rote theological dogma. XIAN dogma.Can we agree that at all times and in all debates the opponents were also Xians and it was longstanding Xian dogma being fought against? They read books and they travelled. They did not just learn from baptists, even if some baptists had experiences which they used as examples. Your limited vision on what they did is astounding.Its like you pull up and example that some Xians were the first to mint coins in a state, and so claim Xianity was the source for coinage in the US. I still have no idea what your active criteria is. By the way if you look up info on Separation of Church and State as well as guys like Williams, and you will find that your def doesn't seem to hold much popularity. If Iran is a theocracy I certainly do not understand how England was not.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uh, I didn't suggest you were off claiming religious liberty was codified in some colonial charters. In fact I said quite the opposite, read again... Was that not clear enough? I really hate it when a person acts as if they are pointing out something, that I not only understand but I explained within my own post. There are narrow and broad definitions of the age of enlightenment. The narrow version which is the quote you mined out of the wiki article,(just had to leave off everything after that comma), is 1700s. I told you straight out that my use is broad and includes the age of reason.This is valid, from Wiki... Got it? If you want to push everything back to the Rennaissance that's fine by me. We've been over this ground before rand. There were bits and pieces of all the things used within our constitution mentioned or tried somewhere before our founding fathers wrote it. How many times do I have to say that to you?If you want it gathering momentum within the general population, enactment of such things does not begin until the ENLIGHTENMENT. That is when such heretical notions are given a greater than passing glances by others.You just don't seem to get what my criticism is here. The very baptist denominations you are discussing were thriving within the environment of the enlightenment. If not for its success those same people would be as successful as they had been all along up to that point... Right? I mean they had been around and getting repressed for how many centuries (even before the 1500s)?There was an intellectual/political movement which allowed it to grow. Really? All? Oh wait, of respectable society. Whatever that means. Give me some examples of secular thinkers or "age of reason" type thinkers scoffing at Penn. And you know I can point out just as easily... and more so... how devout (fundamentalist type) Xians almost en masse rejected such ideas. Which brings us to the point I keep trying to make to you... it was not a Xian issue but a specific political concept.Intriguingly, why didn't many other anabaptist concepts end up in govt? Indeed how about the fact that some anabaptists believed in never serving in any civil govt and only kingdoms of their religion? I've seen you arguing and making fun of concepts that Penn argued. But you are twisting this. The FOUNDATION of the idea? No one else was ever saying this? Xians, including many in the evangelical wing of Xianity did not denounce it as well?I love how you guys huff and puff a small item in a sect you'd dismiss today anyway into some gargantuan entity as if to prove Xianity and evangelism was the source of all great ideas, and most certainly the ideas within the Constitution... in order to argue that everything is based on or should give thanks to Xianity and thus we should REJECT the very great ideas we are in fact discussing.The first successfully surviving strains of those for such separation were within the anabaptist community. They were persecuted by others including evangelical types.The process of society breaking free of religious dogma all over, which began in the rennaissance through the age of reason/enlightenment, allowed the possibility for that to get tested.Deists and atheists ultimately picked it up and placed it firmly in a national govt. No, no it is not. Even within the anabaptist movement you have different interpretations of what that meant. Some involved complete disengagement except into a holy kingdom of god.The fact that evangelicals are swarmed throughout our modern govt, attempting to say US laws should reflect god's laws patently refutes everything you have just said. Horseshit. You think there are no written documents before late 100 AD that conjectured such things? Or records of people that practiced such things.The wiki entry is a bit vague and I think misreadable. There was no set separation, but then in some cultures there were not always religions that were so important to be a part of govt. Certainly within most of the larger civilizations both were mixed, and that includes 100% of the first Xian civilization. But there were pagan cultures where animism and basic personal rites were about all there was and did not take precedent over what we would call govt matters.What I think is really funny is that you miss entirely the fact that religious persecution began in earnest with the monotheists, making themselves the prime creator of the need to have such separations in order for there to be religious freedom.There were few pagan societies, even where it was part of the government, where you could not worship as you would as long as you accepted the ruling pantheon. As long as you are looking only at the anabaptists as the only source for the founding fathers you are taking the short view. It doesn't matter if you then go on to show where the anabaptists got their influences. We were discussing the govt remember? They compromised not demanding all states change their documents before ratification for the national gov't. That leaves open whether those state govts could be affected afterward by things within the Bill of Rights. Or, even more important, whether they believed more rights would be recognized and so further limitations placed on govt.I am still confused where you get this image of them being so tight and not wanting to restrain govts from doing things. They were seeking to limit power as much as possible. They discussed the hope for growth of more rights and greater limits on the govt. Come on, how can you feel good about yourself with that? Separation from temporal kingdoms to join his kingdom. That does not change anything except for allegiences. The model is still NOT a democracy and IS a theocracy.Yes it meant that many wanted to drop out of temporal kingdoms or WHATEVER govt. They didn't want to participate at all in such things. Right? You can admit this was the type of separation we are discussing? Ah yes the old, "Those SS are totally different than us Nazi prison guards" routine. The BIBLE, that thing you guys claim is so frickin' inerrant, came from that "hybrid". Without that "hybrid" it would not be as around the world famous as it is right now, and indeed maybe Xianity would be belly up. Catholicism IS Xian.Protestants, even evangelical types, persecuted fellow baptists when it was their turn in power.I can still turn on the TV today and watch evangelicals calling other protestants and other evangelicals false Xians.You are either all hybrid pagans, or you are all Xians following different denominational interpretations. That's about what your choice boils down to. Huh? I acknowledge whoever fought for such ideas, no matter where they came from. I have even acknowledged that most of the people involved throughout the process of political developments through creation of the US were from some strain of Xianity.I even acknowledge (which some her don't) that Deism is still relatively a Xian offshoot, even if it is alien to evangelical versions of Xianity.What I have been making clear, or should I say refusing to allow the waters to be muddie on, is that regardless of religion, it was the political idea which was important. It neither required Xian dogma to be created, nor did it require Xian dogma to survive.One can of course argue its merits within the theological context... but if one is discussing this idea and govt, then that is besides the point.Indeed it is to betray these very concepts to then suggest it is only through god or jesus' words that we could conceive or work such a notion.Maybe you should explain why it could not have come from anyone else. Actually I cannot speak for where that one guy got his ideas. I have not studied him much. What I can say is that if not for others of other beliefs his specific attempts would not have had a chance of being enacted. That others could draw from other sources and indeed did.I am not disputing that the founding fathers would have used HIS example, especially its success when formulating their plans. As such it can certainly be said that there was a Xian person and a Xian community who did do this and were an example they took from. Coocoo for cocoa puffs. They also had Xian counterexamples.For god's sake why don't you just read the writings of the founding fathers? You can read right in some of their works how they compare religious effects within govt.Like I said it was ALLLLLLLLL XIAN. The semantic hairsplitting you are engaging in is revisionism. They would have almost all have claimed Xian heritage at that time regardless of political idea being fronted. The religion was used to justify, not as the primary building block of political reason.That is ESPECIALLY true during the AGE of REASON which people like Williams and Penn were a part of. They could judge effects and reason which had better outcomes, and if not them (if for some reason that is true), then those who ended up accepting what they said.I will note that you did not acknowledge at all in your post that your use of theocracy was challenged.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I was trying to set things straight, you don't even make it through my post, and then write a response where you say we need to get something straight? That's classic.Let me try this in a more straightforward way.1) Ancient History of Religion in Govt.In ancient times religion and govt mixed freely. That is there was no bar to it, though that did not mean that all societies practiced govt tied to and enacted from religious authority. Some people's religions were too ephemeral to have such control. Yes pagans certainly did persecute people, and some did so for religious reasons. For the most part however pagans allowed all different kinds of gods to coexist, and so their people's to coexist. Of course the Roman pagan oppression of Xians was very real and horrific, but stemmed in part from political machinations which keyed on monotheist intolerance for other religions.Monotheists were the first to use the mixed religion and govt combo to actively supress and deny any and all other faiths in large genocidal purges. Pagan purges were usually specified, monotheist purges were all encompassing. The reason should be obvious. Thus the rise of monotheist mixtures of religion and govt, more than pagan mixes, created the necessity of bars on such mixtures for there to be freedom of religion.There were those in all societies which discussed practical civil govt, rather than govt based on set religious principles.It is true that as Xianity became the dominate conquering force, the only long surviving group which advocated the practice of temporal civil govt for earthly life and religious govt for spiritual life, were the baptist orders. I have not denied this nor have I shirked giving them credit for (in some denominations) fighting for something that I happen to agree with.... secularism.2) Secularism.Secularism means practical civil govt divorced from religious issues. Thus when you say things like... I have to scratch my head. Then I realize you are using atheist and secularist interchangeably. I think that's why you keep projecting something I am NOT saying onto my position.Yes, there were few if any atheist or pagan secularists discussing such ideas, much less any such communities under the Xian dominated kingdoms. There were however Xian SECULARISTS. The anabaptists were secularists, that is the definition of what they were discussing and fighting for.They were secularist as long as they were advocating separation between civil and religious authority. It does not matter where they got their inspiration or justifications from, but what they were calling for and fighting for as a practical political matter.3) Rennaissance thru Enlightenment.The possibility of secular civil govt was a long fight which involved many different cultures, including ancient pagan ones as well as post Xian Islamic ones. It was ALWAYS a fight against Xians and Xian dogma. Even if it was Xians fighting Xians, those on top were always at all times Xian. And they used scripture to defend themselves.That is why I am consistently saying that the question of religion as "source" is moot. The important issues were political and practical reason in nature.People increasingly (and this started in Islam... NOT Xianity) began to view govt as needing to be under the constraint of law, as well as to seek out answers to problems using logic and reason rather than simply what has been said before.When I say "people" you seem to want to imagine I am talking about atheists or something. I am not. I am under full comprehension that I am discussing almost unanimous Xians when we are discussing mid-late western european society. But it was patently not just their faith, not just dogma, that was forcing this.There was an intellectual awakening to foreign and ancient ideas and a greater defense of being able to explore them. Anabaptists wishing to practice secularism were aided by this growing cultural trend, which started by holding govt to greater civil account and question... even if not believing in full secularism.They did not survive in a vaccuum of culture.As time moved forward to greater reason and possibility for trying different methods of govt (made even better by the opening of colonies beyond the direct control of kings) these ideas certainly did spread and get discussed.4) The Founding of Secularism within our Nation.While you are correct that anabaptists, or some other protestant denominations, had been practicing forms of secular govt, and anabaptists in particular had a long history of having desired such things (though the nature of what it meant had evolved over time), it is not anabaptist doctrine which got founded in the constitution.You will NOT find the founders discussing the merits of jesus' words and so deciding that they should be interred within our laws. They WERE NOT ANABAPTISTS. Some were hardly identifiable as practicing Xian.The founders WERE the product and exemplars of the age of enlightenment and reason (and rennaissaince if you want to be a stickler). They WERE the ones that founded the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.What they did do was travel and examine all sorts of ideas in govt, including pagan concepts, and drew from practical experiences and theoretical discussions of individuality based in REASON, to meld together a new form of govt.Yes they looked at the works of the anabaptists, who had quite a success with their SECULAR experiment, and they discussed its merits. No matter what Jesus had said, if the secular experiments had always been resounding failures in practice, it would likely not have ended up in the Constitution.You are missing the FACT, that if it had been pygmy tribes in Africa where they discovered it, it would have held equal weight in consideration. It was not the closeness to God of the adherents, or the likely best interpretation of jesus' words which they were dealing with... It was REASON, based in empirical observation.I do NOT discount that many of the experiments with secularism in the Xian west were in fact run by Xians, who used scripture to justify their beliefs. What you are discounting is that these same Xians lived among vastly different Xian beliefs, and in a world which contained nonXian beliefs, and that they were aided in their own experiments by a rising culture which eventually gave them power to try it out, and a few of their experimental practices were eventually cemented into our Nation by people who did not share the same religious views but saw it had practical value and so was reasonable to pursue as policy.You want everyone to feel indebted to anabaptists without admitting how much they are indebted to others that were fighting their own struggles and altogether created a change that aided them all. The progress of all these issues together was the growing age of Reason and Enlightenment.The anabaptists were secularists and part of those ages, whether YOU want to admit it or not. You have not seen me deny their Xianity at any point in time. You however have repeatedly denied they were part of the age they in fact were part of, and that the founding fathers used their experiment in secularism for reasons nonbiblical in nature and wholly for reasons consistent with enlightenment thinking.Are we straight yet?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Originate is not correct. That is especially true as what they meant by such separation varied greatly. It is correct to say that the earliest and most successful community fighting for such separation were certain "baptist" strains of Xianity. I agree Baptist is loose but lets just use that from now on because I am tired of worrying about what to write. As long as we know what we mean that's fine. Secularism can differ in strength and some may view it as being overtly antireligious. But regardless its basic and most common usage is merely a separation between religious and civil concerns. Separation of church and state IS a secular concept, and the US was most definitely founded to be secular.The writings of our founding fathers outside the constitution, if it was not clear enough in the very literal meanings of the Constitution, are incapable of such confusion. There is no discussion of religious but nonsectarian. The comments are a divorce between the two worlds.I have given you quotes and you simply do not respond. The most you give me is that someone used some words in a speech once, despite the same speech contained commentary directly suggesting noneffect of religion by the govt. Well then 2 for 2, like theocracy before, your definition does not match common usage. And you are firmly out of step with what our founding fathers said and did.Can I ask if you have ever read the writings of our founding fathers, beyond the commonly quotemined excerpts fundies seem to love? Secularism does not equal atheism. You can be very religious an secularist. The anabaptists were most certainly practicing secularists, even if not strong or strict as it can be. You don't even know what you are talking about do you? Williams, the very guy you use as a poster boy, would NOT have been for that as it would mean forcing activity he felt should NOT be a part of govt. Intriguingly from some of his own activity he would not have been for putting monuments to the 10 commandments in front of courthouses. He had explicitly decried the first 5 being considered a part of civil govt. ??????? It wasn't Xians that oppressed everyone in the name of Jesus and the Kingdom of God, but atheists and people for separating religion from govt? And in the end it was Xians who saved us all from atheist and secularist oppression by creating govt with freedom of religion?I am aghast at the warped sense of reality such a comment would take. I guess that is the level of denial a Xian needs to get through reality.Very sad.I'm still trying to figure out who "my people" were that were allied with the pope. I am not denying that some Xians felt this connection in a heartfelt way. The point is that every Xian on every side felt the same thing with regard to their own interpretation. And it was not necessary to even know of that passage to gain or hold such an idea. Uh, well written law systems and democracies came from pagan and patently unXian cultures. Are you suggesting that their specific religions and attributions from their deities are what Xians owe allegiance and gratitude to. Or do you simply realize that the important matter is the political idea which Xians may have picked up?I mean if I am going to accept this rather unusual demand for crediting baptists, essentially nothing except for that belongs to Xianity. And as I point out, that one slim idea was only made a practical necessity because monotheists took over and wiped out ALL competing religion making religious freedom impossible.It was not impossible under paganism. ???? First of all that term is NOT in the Constitution. Second they didn't all use that term. Third, for those that did, that was only a phrase. They really did discuss their rationale and it had nothing to do with Jesus or God. Really.Tell you what. Why don't you find me the explanation from Jefferson (personal writing or to others) that argued the anabaptist position you have outlined, that it is based in scripture ("ceasar unto ceasar" and all that) we find the reason for adopting such principles into a nation. Uhhhh, that does NOT help your position. These people chose reps and the founding fathers were them. Among those reps a specific group were trusted as the brightest and most trustworthy to create a govt for all. Then when shown the product, and the explanations were right out there for what was in it, they voted to accept it.Perhaps what you need to do is understand that the people of that time were not necessarily as limited and impractical as you make them out to be.Its intriguing that you mention quakers and anabaptists when so many of their beliefs were not accepted as reasonable for being in the govt, and indeed people like you reject out of hand today. Yep, when some Xian followers of Jesus finally got out from under the yoke of other Xian followers of Jesus, to show how secularist concepts work in govt, empirical observations were available after millenia of overt religious oppression by Xian followers of Jesus.In the end, the people that put into a national constitution did so based on reason rather than following scriptural tenets. I'm so sorry that you can't seem to admit this rather obvious fact. Well that's just silly. How can you possibly take something centuries in the past that personally?In any case, "my people" were nearly purged from the planet by your ignorant hordes and had to wait until you SOBs decided to re-invent the wheel we had made millenia before, after fighting each other over things like which dunk into the water finally makes you saintly.I've got a larger chip. You ripped off my people, you butchered my people, then want a cookie from my people for making a peace which allowed my people to live again. Again you want to divorce a people from an era. You act like I pretend there is such a thing as secular enlightenists, who were some intellectual elite individuals dispassionately reviewing any and all things in society and moving it forward toward a specific goal.The enlightenment was a period of time with many different groups working on different aspects of life and knowledge, with sometimes no coordination, and no knowledge they are part of a larger social movement.It was a collective group of actions that made end results possible and available to others within the western world.You have clearly overstated the nature of secularism by the time of the Constitution, but it is true that its fruits were recognized by many and it was spreading. The time was right for it on the national level, among the other ideas the founding fathers explored an implemented.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is not semantics. The anabaptists were not secularists with regard to natural philosophy, metaphysics, and thus religious outlook.The definition you yourself quoted supports what I said, look after that semi-colon... ALSO, MATTERS OF CIVIL POLICY, MANAGED WITHOUT INTRODUCTION OF RELIGIOUS ELEMENT. Are you hard of reading? You could have looked at the same source for the definition of secularism: You want to use one, but I am using two. I have consistently been using two and have been making it as explicit as possible. How many times have I said that it was a political issue that was important? They were politically secular. It is when you can read an entire paragraph, understand punctuation, and cross reference to root definitions. I just showed why I do not, and will return the favor by pointing out that you owe me an apology for claiming I am simply playing semantic games.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I asked... To which you reply... Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, he wrote a baptist association AFTER and not DURING the contemplative period of what to put in the Constitution. In this letter does not discuss at all why he shares their view on the separation of such activities, and certainly does not suggest that it is because of Jesus' admonitions or any other theological basis.All he says is... I agree with that sentiment and I am agnostic-atheist. I would likely have written much the same thing if I was contacting such a group. They agree on that very practical subject and he smartly uses a phrase they are known to have used.If that is the best you can do, you are in serious trouble. What's funny is that you didn't even bother quoting anything. That suggests to me you were aware how much it did NOT answer my challenge.Jefferson wrote lots of other people, as well as making notes for himself. He discusses his influences in decisions on matters in govt. Why don't you find me the ones where he explains how important the anabaptist theological tenets were for his decision that it made sense within govt?By the way, it is additionally interesting to read the draft copy of his letter to the Baptists. To cut it short he edited out something about the nature of the govt he helped create... wanna read that? Here ya go... Can you read that? That sure as heck does NOT say, supportive but not sectarian. That says not supportive, even if NOT sectarian.Uh oh.Like I said, I don't think you've ever read anything these guys have written, except those tiny excerpts handed to you by fundie propaganda bureaus. Its like the fundie version of Beavis and Butthead..."Huh-huh, he said God, huh-huh".

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Don't you realize you are the one playing semantic games?Both RAZD and I have made very clear how we use the term secular. And we have both shown support for such terms in popular usage.You on the other hand have only cited one definition and indeed ignored that the second half of the definition supported our usage, in order to try and play the word "secular" as necessarily meaning atheistic.Now it is silly and childish to continue playing the game you are doing but if that is the way you want to conduct yourself, fine. I do not need to use the term as it is properly used in order to maintain my position. My position does not hinge on one word.So for sake of argument with you right here and now, I will use secular=rejection of religion from all things, disbelief.In that case I will coin a new term called "civil separationist" (CS for short). This means a person who believes that govt is best run, and should be run, by dealing only with practical nonreligious issues, and not invoking religion for its policies. It makes no difference why a person may feel that way, just that they feel that way and fight for it.Now what you can do is go back and read my posts and anywhere where it says secular, you can put CS. My posts will mean the same thing, and your responses will stand out as glaring pieces of semantics.That is you are arguing that no matter how I used a term, you would treat the word I used according to your own definition and construct an argument around that. In other words, build strawmen of my position and those of others.Now lets review, using the new terminology:Anabaptists were not secular, but they were CS. Anabaptists argued for this in large part due to a religious doctrine which suggested civil and spiritual issues should be treated separately.The founding fathers... especially the major constructors... were not anabaptist and few were secular, but they were CS. They argued for this, even the nonsecular ones, in a wholly different way that the anabaptists. They argued from reason based on practical results and nontheological philosophical concepts of rights as found in writers like Locke. Thus as would any exemplar of enlightenment age thinking.Are you getting it yet?PS- don't forget post 43 is for you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'd have no problem agreeing that to some extent they were theocratic. It was a little bit different in that you could hold on to your personal religion. The big problem was public acceptance of the state Gods. So in essence you could practice what you believed as long as you could swear allegiance to their holy symbols.Solutions to civic problems were generally not formulated by theocrats, or appeals to theological doctrines. Indeed that would be hard in a pagan state with so many Gods and do many doctrines.Monotheist theocracies go a bit further in pushing doctrine into govt. So you assert, but it has been shown, even from your own links, that you are the one not in alignment with the common usage. Upon what are you basing your opinion at this point?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)